Skip to content
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
47 changes: 47 additions & 0 deletions gems/faraday/CVE-2026-33637.yml
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
---
gem: faraday
cve: 2026-33637
ghsa: 5rv5-xj5j-3484
url: https://github.com/lostisland/faraday/security/advisories/GHSA-5rv5-xj5j-3484
title: Faraday has a possible incomplete fix for GHSA-33mh-2634-fwr2 -
protocol-relative URI objects still bypass host scoping
date: 2026-05-18
description: |
## Summary

`Faraday::Connection#build_exclusive_url` still allows protocol-relative
host override when the request target is provided as a `URI` object
instead of a `String`. This bypasses the February 2026 fix for
`GHSA-33mh-2634-fwr2` and can redirect a request built from a fixed-base
`Faraday::Connection` to an attacker-controlled host while preserving
connection-scoped headers such as `Authorization`.

## Supporting Materials

- Existing advisory for the original string-based issue: GHSA-33mh-2634-fwr2
- Existing CVE for the original string-based issue: CVE-2026-25765
- Existing regression tests for the string-only fix:
- spec/faraday/connection_spec.rb:314-345
- Existing test proving supported URI request input:
- spec/faraday/request_spec.rb:26-31

## Impact

The direct consequence is off-host request forgery from code paths
that believe they are constrained to a fixed base URL. If the
connection carries default headers or query parameters, those
values are forwarded to the attacker-selected host.
cvss_v3: 0.0
unaffected_versions:
- "< 2.0.0"
patched_versions:
- ">= 2.14.2"
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33637 says

This issue has been fixed in version 2.14.3.

But there is no 2.14.3 :-o https://rubygems.org/gems/faraday/versions. So something is off in here. Is CVE wrong? Should we report?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, nvd website data is wrong so I did not use it. Check the release notes URL.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unclicked "Resolve comment" button - will wait for your feedback.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All good, just wondering if there's known contact where to report such a mistakes.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, nvd website data is wrong so I did not use it. Check the release notes URL.

Try GitHub Security Advisory (GHSA) web site - see that NVD website got the data from there.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If you want to fix this data, this can be worked separately from this PR.

related:
url:
- https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33637
- https://github.com/lostisland/faraday/releases/tag/v2.14.2
- https://github.com/lostisland/faraday/security/advisories/GHSA-5rv5-xj5j-3484
Comment thread
jasnow marked this conversation as resolved.
- https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-33mh-2634-fwr2
- https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-5rv5-xj5j-3484
notes: |
- ZERO CVSS value in GHSA and NVD
Loading