CyberSecBulletin

Puma vulnerabilities

We track 5 vulnerabilities in Puma products. 5 are rated high or critical, and none are known to be exploited. The most recent was published on July 14, 2026.

5vulnerabilities
1critical
4high
0exploited
8.0average CVSS score

Latest Puma vulnerabilities

  • 7.5 High severity

    puma: Authentication Bypass by Spoofing

    CVE-2026-47737Puma

    Puma is a Ruby/Rack web server built for parallelism. From 5.5.0 until 7.2.1 and 8.0.2, Puma is vulnerable to source IP spoofing when set_remote_address proxy_protocol: :v1 is enabled and persistent connections are used because Puma incorrectly re-parses PROXY

  • 7.5 High severity

    puma: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

    CVE-2026-47736Puma

    Puma is a Ruby/Rack web server built for parallelism. From 5.5.0 until 7.2.1 and 8.0.2, when PROXY protocol v1 support is enabled, Puma reads incoming bytes into an internal buffer while waiting for CRLF to determine whether a PROXY v1 line is present, allowin

  • 7.5 High severity

    puma: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests

    CVE-2024-21647Puma

    Puma is a web server for Ruby/Rack applications built for parallelism. Prior to version 6.4.2, puma exhibited incorrect behavior when parsing chunked transfer encoding bodies in a way that allowed HTTP request smuggling. Fixed versions limits the size of chunk

  • 9.8 Critical severity

    puma: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests

    CVE-2023-40175Puma

    Puma is a Ruby/Rack web server built for parallelism. Prior to versions 6.3.1 and 5.6.7, puma exhibited incorrect behavior when parsing chunked transfer encoding bodies and zero-length Content-Length headers in a way that allowed HTTP request smuggling. Severi

  • 7.5 High severity

    puma: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests

    CVE-2022-24790PumaEPSS 2.19%

    Puma is a simple, fast, multi-threaded, parallel HTTP 1.1 server for Ruby/Rack applications. When using Puma behind a proxy that does not properly validate that the incoming HTTP request matches the RFC7230 standard, Puma and the frontend proxy may disagree on