CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-46727

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Published: May 07, 2025 | Modified: Jun 17, 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 IMPORTANT
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

Rack is a modular Ruby web server interface. Prior to versions 2.2.14, 3.0.16, and 3.1.14, Rack::QueryParser parses query strings and application/x-www-form-urlencoded bodies into Ruby data structures without imposing any limit on the number of parameters, allowing attackers to send requests with extremely large numbers of parameters. The vulnerability arises because Rack::QueryParser iterates over each &-separated key-value pair and adds it to a Hash without enforcing an upper bound on the total number of parameters. This allows an attacker to send a single request containing hundreds of thousands (or more) of parameters, which consumes excessive memory and CPU during parsing. An attacker can trigger denial of service by sending specifically crafted HTTP requests, which can cause memory exhaustion or pin CPU resources, stalling or crashing the Rack server. This results in full service disruption until the affected worker is restarted. Versions 2.2.14, 3.0.16, and 3.1.14 fix the issue. Some other mitigations are available. One may use middleware to enforce a maximum query string size or parameter count, or employ a reverse proxy (such as Nginx) to limit request sizes and reject oversized query strings or bodies. Limiting request body sizes and query string lengths at the web server or CDN level is an effective mitigation.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
RackRack*2.2.14 (excluding)
RackRack3.0.0 (including)3.0.16 (excluding)
RackRack3.1.0 (including)3.1.14 (excluding)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10RedHatpcs-0:0.12.0-3.el10_0.2*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle SupportRedHatpcs-0:0.9.169-3.el7_9.4*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8RedHatpcs-0:0.10.18-2.el8_10.5*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Telecommunications Update ServiceRedHatpcs-0:0.10.8-1.el8_4.7*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Update Services for SAP SolutionsRedHatpcs-0:0.10.8-1.el8_4.7*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Telecommunications Update ServiceRedHatpcs-0:0.10.12-6.el8_6.8*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Update Services for SAP SolutionsRedHatpcs-0:0.10.12-6.el8_6.8*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Extended Update SupportRedHatpcs-0:0.10.15-4.el8_8.6*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9RedHatpcs-0:0.11.9-2.el9_6.1*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0 Update Services for SAP SolutionsRedHatpcs-0:0.11.1-10.el9_0.8*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 Extended Update SupportRedHatpcs-0:0.11.4-7.el9_2.5*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Extended Update SupportRedHatpcs-0:0.11.7-2.el9_4.4*
Red Hat Satellite 6.15 for RHEL 8RedHatrubygem-rack-0:2.2.14-1.el8sat*
Red Hat Satellite 6.15 for RHEL 8RedHatrubygem-rack-0:2.2.14-1.el8sat*
Red Hat Satellite 6.16 for RHEL 8RedHatrubygem-rack-0:2.2.14-1.el8sat*
Red Hat Satellite 6.16 for RHEL 8RedHatrubygem-rack-0:2.2.14-1.el8sat*
Red Hat Satellite 6.16 for RHEL 9RedHatrubygem-rack-0:2.2.14-1.el9sat*
Red Hat Satellite 6.16 for RHEL 9RedHatrubygem-rack-0:2.2.14-1.el9sat*
Red Hat Satellite 6.17 for RHEL 9RedHatrubygem-rack-0:2.2.14-1.el9sat*
Red Hat Satellite 6.17 for RHEL 9RedHatrubygem-rack-0:2.2.14-1.el9sat*
Ruby-rackUbuntudevel*
Ruby-rackUbuntuesm-apps/bionic*
Ruby-rackUbuntuesm-apps/focal*
Ruby-rackUbuntuesm-apps/jammy*
Ruby-rackUbuntuesm-apps/xenial*
Ruby-rackUbuntuesm-infra-legacy/trusty*
Ruby-rackUbuntufocal*
Ruby-rackUbuntujammy*
Ruby-rackUbuntunoble*
Ruby-rackUbuntuoracular*
Ruby-rackUbuntuplucky*
Ruby-rackUbuntuquesting*
Ruby-rackUbuntuupstream*

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