CVE-2026-125110VulnerabilityPublished 12 Nov 2026Updated 13 Nov 2026

Ruby rack: Prior to 2.2.25, 3.1.23, and 3.2.8, Rack::Static serves a path after Utils.clean_path_info normalization

Affects ruby-rackSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-125110· Medium 5.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 2.2.25 : update ruby-rack when convenient.

Data as of 13 Nov 2026, 22:38 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	5.3

Patch: Available – fixed in 2.2.25

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 Nov 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 13 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Ubuntu 26.10ruby-rack`pkg:deb/ubuntu/ruby-rack?arch=source&distro=stonking`Other threats	Affected =3.2.4-1ubuntu1 =3.2.6-3	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 26.04 LTSruby-rack`pkg:deb/ubuntu/ruby-rack?arch=source&distro=resolute`Other threats	Affected 3.1.16-0.1 – 3.2.4-1ubuntu1.1 5 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSruby-rack`pkg:deb/ubuntu/ruby-rack?arch=source&distro=noble`Other threats	Affected 2.2.4-3 – 2.2.7-1ubuntu0.7 9 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu Pro 22.04 LTSruby-rack`pkg:deb/ubuntu/ruby-rack?arch=source&distro=esm-apps/jammy`Other threats	Affected 2.1.4-3 – 2.1.4-5ubuntu1+esm5 15 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu Pro 20.04 LTSruby-rack`pkg:deb/ubuntu/ruby-rack?arch=source&distro=esm-apps/focal`Other threats	Affected 2.0.6-3 – 2.0.7-2ubuntu0.1+esm10 13 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu Pro 18.04 LTSruby-rack`pkg:deb/ubuntu/ruby-rack?arch=source&distro=esm-apps/bionic`Other threats	Affected 1.6.4-4 – 1.6.4-4ubuntu0.2+esm10 12 affected builds	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Upgrade Ruby Rack to version 2.2.25, 3.1.23, or 3.2.8 or later where this issue is fixed. Applications that do not use path-specific header_rules are not affected and require no action related to this vulnerability.

Description

A vulnerability in Ruby Rack versions prior to 2.2.25, 3.1.23, and 3.2.8 allows an unauthenticated attacker to bypass path-specific security headers by exploiting differences in path normalization and URL decoding in Rack::Static. This can lead to serving files without security headers like Content-Disposition or Content-Security-Policy when using raw or percent-encoded dot segments in requests. Applications not using path-specific header_rules are not affected. The issue is fixed in versions 2.2.25, 3.1.23, and 3.2.8.

Impact

An unauthenticated attacker can bypass path-specific security headers by requesting files with specially crafted paths containing raw or percent-encoded dot segments. This may lead to the exposure of files without important security headers, potentially increasing risk of content injection or clickjacking attacks. There is no direct confidentiality or availability impact reported. Applications not using path-specific header_rules are not affected.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 13 Nov 2026, 22:38 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats