Skip to content

GHSA-qfgr-crr9-7r49 CVE-2026-32762

Rack: Forwarded Header semicolon injection enables Host and Scheme spoofing

Medium RubyGems
Severity
4.8 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.19%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 8.17% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-436 Interpretation Conflict
Fix
3.1.21
Upgrade rack to this version or later

Description

Summary

Rack::Utils.forwarded_values parses the RFC 7239 Forwarded header by splitting on semicolons before handling quoted-string values. Because quoted values may legally contain semicolons, a header such as:

Forwarded: for="127.0.0.1;host=evil.com;proto=https"

can be interpreted by Rack as multiple Forwarded directives rather than as a single quoted for value.

In deployments where an upstream proxy, WAF, or intermediary validates or preserves quoted Forwarded values differently, this discrepancy can allow an attacker to smuggle host, proto, for, or by parameters through a single header value.

Details

Rack::Utils.forwarded_values processes the header using logic equivalent to:

forwarded_header.split(';').each_with_object({}) do |field, values|
  field.split(',').each do |pair|
    pair = pair.split('=').map(&:strip).join('=')
    return nil unless pair =~ /\A(by|for|host|proto)="?([^"]+)"?\Z/i
    (values[$1.downcase.to_sym] ||= []) << $2
  end
end

The method splits on ; before it parses individual name=value pairs. This is inconsistent with RFC 7239, which permits quoted-string values, and quoted strings may contain semicolons as literal content.

As a result, a header value such as:

Forwarded: for="127.0.0.1;host=evil.com;proto=https"

is not treated as a single for value. Instead, Rack may interpret it as if the client had supplied separate for, host, and proto directives.

This creates an interpretation conflict when another component in front of Rack treats the quoted value as valid literal content, while Rack reparses it as multiple forwarding parameters.

Impact

Applications that rely on Forwarded to derive request metadata may observe attacker-controlled values for host, proto, for, or related URL components.

In affected deployments, this can lead to host or scheme spoofing in derived values such as req.host, req.scheme, req.base_url, or req.url. Applications that use those values for password reset links, redirects, absolute URL generation, logging, IP-based decisions, or backend requests may be vulnerable to downstream security impact.

The practical security impact depends on deployment architecture. If clients can already supply arbitrary trusted Forwarded parameters directly, this bug may not add meaningful attacker capability. The issue is most relevant where an upstream component and Rack interpret the same Forwarded header differently.

Mitigation

  • Update to a patched version of Rack that parses Forwarded quoted-string values before splitting on parameter delimiters.
  • Avoid trusting client-supplied Forwarded headers unless they are normalized or regenerated by a trusted reverse proxy.
  • Prefer stripping inbound Forwarded headers at the edge and reconstructing them from trusted proxy metadata.
  • Avoid using req.host, req.scheme, req.base_url, or req.url for security-sensitive operations unless the forwarding chain is explicitly trusted and validated.

Affected versions

RubyGems

PackageVulnerableFixed in
rack
>= 3.0.0.beta1, < 3.1.21
3.1.21
rack
>= 3.2.0, < 3.2.6
3.2.6

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

rack RubyGems → 3.1.21

bundler
bundle update rack # Gemfile: gem "rack", ">= 3.1.21"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.8

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-436: Interpretation Conflict

Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-g2pf-xv49-m2h5
Rack::Request accepts invalid Host characters, enabling host allowlist bypass
Medium Also affects rack
GHSA-v6x5-cg8r-vv6x
Rack's multipart header parsing allows Denial of Service via escape-heavy quoted parameters
High Also affects rack
GHSA-rx22-g9mx-qrhv
Rack's improper unfolding of folded multipart headers preserves CRLF in parsed parameter values
Medium Also affects rack
GHSA-q2ww-5357-x388
Rack has Content-Length mismatch in Rack::Files error responses
Medium Also affects rack
GHSA-qv7j-4883-hwh7
Rack::Sendfile header-based X-Accel-Mapping regex injection enables unauthorized X-Accel-Redirect
High Also affects rack
GHSA-8vqr-qjwx-82mw
Rack's multipart parsing without Content-Length header allows unbounded chunked file uploads
High Also affects rack
GHSA-x8cg-fq8g-mxfx
Rack's multipart byte range processing allows denial of service via excessive overlapping ranges
High Also affects rack
GHSA-q4qf-9j86-f5mh
Rack:: Static header_rules bypass via URL-encoded paths
Medium Also affects rack
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor