HTTP Response Splitting (Early Hints) in Puma
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 26/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 1.5% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 74.9% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: puma Puma 4.3.3.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to puma Puma 4.3.3 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
In Puma (RubyGem) before 4.3.3 and 3.12.4, if an application using Puma allows untrusted input in an early-hints header, an attacker can use a carriage return character 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-2020-5247, which fixed this vulnerability but only for regular responses. This has been fixed in 4.3.3 and 3.12.4.
- Published
- Mar 2, 2020
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.5% · 74th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-113
Report tools
Action score
26
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 26 / 40 · 6.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 1.5%
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 6.5
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 6.5
- agree
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| puma | puma | cpe:2.3:a:puma:puma |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- puma pumaup to 3.12.3 inclusive
- puma puma4.0.0 and later · up to 4.3.2 inclusive
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
puma Puma
- < 3.12.4, >= 4.0.0, < 4.3.3affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian:12 | puma | before 3.12.4-1 | 3.12.4-1 |
| openSUSE:Leap 15.1 | rmt-server | before 2.6.5-lp151.2.18.2 | 2.6.5-lp151.2.18.2 |
| openSUSE:Leap 15.2 | rmt-server | before 2.6.5-lp152.2.3.1 | 2.6.5-lp152.2.3.1 |
| RubyGems | puma | from 4.0.0 · before 4.3.3 | 4.3.3 |
| RubyGems | puma | before 3.12.4 | 3.12.4 |
| SUSE:Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15-ESPOS | rmt-server | before 2.6.5-3.34.1 | 2.6.5-3.34.1 |
| SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Public Cloud 15 SP1 | rmt-server | before 2.6.5-3.18.1 | 2.6.5-3.18.1 |
| SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Public Cloud 15 SP2 | rmt-server | before 2.6.5-3.3.1 | 2.6.5-3.3.1 |
Same product
puma: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2023-40175Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests in puma39Monitor
- CVE-2022-24790HTTP Request Smuggling in puma31Monitor
- CVE-2020-11077HTTP Smuggling via Transfer-Encoding Header in Puma31Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2019-16770Dec 5, 2019 · Potential DOS attack in Puma31Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-5247Feb 28, 2020 · HTTP Response Splitting in Puma31Monitor
- Later →CVE-2020-11076May 22, 2020 · HTTP Smuggling via Transfer-Encoding Header in Puma31Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| puma Puma | 4.3.3 · description | Vendor (CNA) |
| debian:puma | 3.12.4-1 · Debian:12 | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:rmt-server | 2.6.5-lp152.2.3.1 · openSUSE:Leap 15.2 | Package registry (OSV) |
| RubyGems:puma | 3.12.4 | Package registry (OSV) |
| RubyGems:puma | 4.3.3 | Package registry (OSV) |
| suse:rmt-server | 2.6.5-3.3.1 · SUSE:Linux Enterprise Module for Public Cloud 15 SP2 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- none
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- None
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-113 · Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
ATT&CK techniques
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (6 more)Show less
- github.com/puma/puma/security/advisories/GHSA-33vf-4xgg-9r58
- github.com/puma/puma/security/advisories/GHSA-84j7-475p-hp8v
- lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BMJ3CGZ3DLBJ5WUUKMI5ZFXFJQMXJZIK/
- lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DIHVO3CQMU7BZC7FCTSRJ33YDNS3GFPK/
- lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NJ3LL5F5QADB6LM46GXZETREAKZMQNRD/
- owasp.org/www-community/attacks/HTTP_Response_Splitting
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.