CVE-2020-5249

Description

A flaw was discovered in rubygem-puma, where it did not properly forbid untrusted input in an early-hints header. This flaw allows an attacker with the ability to tamper with HTTP headers to insert a carriage return character to end the header and then insert malicious content, allowing an HTTP response splitting, which exposes the risk of attacks such as cross-site scripting.

Statement

This issue affects the version of rubygem-puma shipped with Red Hat Gluster Storage 3, as it does not prevent HTTP Response splitting via CR in early hints.

Red Hat CloudForms uses affected RubyGem Puma, however, it is not vulnerable since it does not have custom code enabling early hints, HTTP/2 support or way to return 103 response. A future update may fix affected RubyGem.

Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details

Info alert:Important note

CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).

The following CVSS metrics and score provided are preliminary and subject to review.

CVSS v3 Score Breakdown

Red HatNVDcve.org
Base Score5.36.5N/A
Attack VectorNetworkNetworkN/A
Attack ComplexityHighLowN/A
Privileges RequiredLowLowN/A
User InteractionNoneNoneN/A
ScopeUnchangedUnchangedN/A
ConfidentialityNoneNoneN/A
Integrity ImpactHighHighN/A
Availability ImpactNoneNoneN/A

Vector

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

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

Red Hat CVSS v3 Score Explanation

Red Hat products do not use early hint configuration which makes this attack complex to perform.

Understanding the Weakness (CWE)

Access Control,Confidentiality

Technical Impact: Bypass Protection Mechanism; Read Application Data

The most common attack performed with cross-site scripting involves the disclosure of private information stored in user cookies, such as session information. Typically, a malicious user will craft a client-side script, which -- when parsed by a web browser -- performs some activity on behalf of the victim to an attacker-controlled system (such as sending all site cookies to a given E-mail address). This could be especially dangerous to the site if the victim has administrator privileges to manage that site. This script will be loaded and run by each user visiting the web site. Since the site requesting to run the script has access to the cookies in question, the malicious script does also.

Integrity,Confidentiality,Availability

Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands

In some circumstances it may be possible to run arbitrary code on a victim's computer when cross-site scripting is combined with other flaws, for example, "drive-by hacking."

Confidentiality,Integrity,Availability,Access Control

Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Bypass Protection Mechanism; Read Application Data

The consequence of an XSS attack is the same regardless of whether it is stored or reflected. The difference is in how the payload arrives at the server. XSS can cause a variety of problems for the end user that range in severity from an annoyance to complete account compromise. Some cross-site scripting vulnerabilities can be exploited to manipulate or steal cookies, create requests that can be mistaken for those of a valid user, compromise confidential information, or execute malicious code on the end user systems for a variety of nefarious purposes. Other damaging attacks include the disclosure of end user files, installation of Trojan horse programs, redirecting the user to some other page or site, running "Active X" controls (under Microsoft Internet Explorer) from sites that a user perceives as trustworthy, and modifying presentation of content.

Frequently Asked Questions

Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.