GHSA-x8cg-fq8g-mxfx — rack
MEDIUMGHSA-x8cg-fq8g-mxfx is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.3) Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in rack. A fix is available for rack — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Rack's multipart byte range processing allows denial of service via excessive overlapping ranges
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.
- CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-x8cg-fq8g-mxfx.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
GHSA-x8cg-fq8g-mxfx plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 377,238 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
rack💎rack💎rackReal-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
Summary
Rack::Utils.get_byte_ranges parses the HTTP Range header without limiting the number of individual byte ranges. Although the existing fix for CVE-2024-26141 rejects ranges whose total byte coverage exceeds the file size, it does not restrict the count of ranges. An attacker can supply many small overlapping ranges such as 0-0,0-0,0-0,... to trigger disproportionate CPU, memory, I/O, and bandwidth consumption per request.
This results in a denial of service condition in Rack file-serving paths that process multipart byte range responses.
Details
Rack::Utils.get_byte_ranges accepts a comma-separated list of byte ranges and validates them based on their aggregate size, but does not impose a limit on how many individual ranges may be supplied.
As a result, a request such as:
Range: bytes=0-0,0-0,0-0,0-0,...
can contain thousands of overlapping one-byte ranges while still satisfying the total-size check added for CVE-2024-26141.
When such a header is processed by Rack’s file-serving code, each range causes additional work, including multipart response generation, per-range iteration, file seek and read operations, and temporary string allocation for response size calculation and output. This allows a relatively small request header to trigger disproportionately expensive processing and a much larger multipart response.
The issue is distinct from CVE-2024-26141. That fix prevents range sets whose total byte coverage exceeds the file size, but does not prevent a large number of overlapping ranges whose summed size remains within that limit.
Impact
Applications that expose file-serving paths with byte range support may be vulnerable to denial of service.
An unauthenticated attacker can send crafted Range headers containing many small overlapping ranges to consume excessive CPU time, memory, file I/O, and bandwidth. Repeated requests may reduce application availability and increase pressure on workers and garbage collection.
Mitigation
- Update to a patched version of Rack that limits the number of accepted byte ranges.
- Reject or normalize multipart byte range requests containing excessive range counts.
- Consider disabling multipart range support where it is not required.
- Apply request filtering or header restrictions at the reverse proxy or application boundary to limit abusive
Rangeheaders.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 💎RubyGems | rack | all versions | 2.2.23bundle update rack --conservative |
| 💎RubyGems | rack | ≥ 3.0.0.beta1&&< 3.1.21 | 3.1.21bundle update rack --conservative |
| 💎RubyGems | rack | ≥ 3.2.0&&< 3.2.6 | 3.2.6bundle update rack --conservative |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for rack, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update rack to 2.2.23 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-x8cg-fq8g-mxfx 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.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-x8cg-fq8g-mxfx can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-x8cg-fq8g-mxfx. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-x8cg-fq8g-mxfx in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-x8cg-fq8g-mxfx across RubyGems dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.