CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2022-44571

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Published: Feb 09, 2023 | Modified: Feb 13, 2025
CVSS 3.x
7.5
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
7.5 MODERATE
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

There is a denial of service vulnerability in the Content-Disposition parsingcomponent of Rack fixed in 2.0.9.2, 2.1.4.2, 2.2.4.1, 3.0.0.1. This could allow an attacker to craft an input that can cause Content-Disposition header parsing in Rackto take an unexpected amount of time, possibly resulting in a denial ofservice attack vector. This header is used typically used in multipartparsing. Any applications that parse multipart posts using Rack (virtuallyall Rails applications) are impacted.

Weakness

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Rack Rack 2.0.0 (including) 2.0.9.2 (excluding)
Rack Rack 2.1.0 (including) 2.1.4.2 (excluding)
Rack Rack 2.2.0 (including) 2.2.6.1 (excluding)
Rack Rack 3.0.0.0 (including) 3.0.4.1 (excluding)
Red Hat Satellite 6.14 for RHEL 8 RedHat rubygem-rack-0:2.2.7-1.el8sat *
Red Hat Satellite 6.14 for RHEL 8 RedHat rubygem-rack-0:2.2.7-1.el8sat *
Ruby-rack Ubuntu bionic *
Ruby-rack Ubuntu esm-apps/bionic *
Ruby-rack Ubuntu esm-apps/focal *
Ruby-rack Ubuntu esm-apps/jammy *
Ruby-rack Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Ruby-rack Ubuntu esm-infra-legacy/trusty *
Ruby-rack Ubuntu focal *
Ruby-rack Ubuntu jammy *
Ruby-rack Ubuntu kinetic *
Ruby-rack Ubuntu trusty *
Ruby-rack Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Ruby-rack Ubuntu upstream *
Ruby-rack Ubuntu xenial *

Potential Mitigations

  • Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:

  • The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.

  • The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.

References