CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
MEDIUM

CVE-2020-5247

CVE-2020-5247 — HTTP Response Splitting in Puma

In Puma (RubyGem) before 4.3.2 and before 3.12.3, if an application using Puma allows untrusted input in a response header, an attacker can use newline characters (i.e. `CR`, `LF` or`/r`, `/n`) to end the header and inject malicious content, such as additional headers or an entirely new response body. This vulnerability is known as HTTP Response Splitting. While not an attack in itself, response splitting is a vector for several other attacks, such as cross-site scripting (XSS). This is related to CVE-2019-16254, which fixed this vulnerability for the WEBrick Ruby web server. This has been fixed in versions 4.3.2 and 3.12.3 by checking all headers for line endings and rejecting headers with those characters.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

3%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

puma

puma

CVSS base

6.5

MEDIUM

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

Products (1)

puma

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
6.5CVSS 3.1MEDIUMcvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-113

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

  • T1539Steal Web Session Cookie

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /r, /n.

References

7 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • pumaevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-113other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.