CVE-2026-34831
Rack ≤ 2.2.23
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-34831 is a medium-severity Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency (CWE-130) vulnerability in Rack Rack. Its CVSS base score is 4.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 4th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-18392
Vulnerability Data
Rack is a modular Ruby web server interface. Prior to versions 2.2.23, 3.1.21, and 3.2.6, Rack::Files#fail sets the Content-Length response header using String#size instead of String#bytesize. When the response body contains multibyte UTF-8 characters, the declared Content-Length is smaller than…
more
the number of bytes actually sent on the wire. Because Rack::Files reflects the requested path in 404 responses, an attacker can trigger this mismatch by requesting a non-existent path containing percent-encoded UTF-8 characters. This results in incorrect HTTP response framing and may cause response desynchronization in deployments that rely on the incorrect Content-Length value. This issue has been patched in versions 2.2.23, 3.1.21, and 3.2.6.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.5.5V4.2.1V4.2.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover length-parameter inconsistencies through targeted parsing tests.
Input validation enforces correct length-to-data consistency checks on parsed messages before processing.
Engineering principles require use of safe string-handling functions that correctly compute multi-byte lengths.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly enforce length validation and input sanitization during coding and review.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development can detect length-inconsistency vulnerabilities before deployment.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and length checks that directly address inconsistent length fields.
Application security requirements include explicit rules for handling message lengths and data structures.
Secure architecture principles require robust parsing and bounds checking to prevent length-related flaws.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit improper length handling and enforce defensive parsing practices.