RackApplication
CVE-2022-44572
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA denial of service vulnerability in the multipart parsing component of Rack fixed in 2.0.9.2, 2.1.4.2, 2.2.4.1 and 3.0.0.1 could allow an attacker tocraft input that can cause RFC2183 multipart boundary parsing in Rack to take an unexpected amount of time, possibly resulting in a denial of service attack vector. Any applications that parse multipart posts using Rack (virtually all Rails applications) are impacted.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThis is a denial of service vulnerability in Rack's multipart parsing component. An attacker can craft malicious multipart input that causes RFC2183 boundary parsing to consume excessive CPU/time, creating a DoS vector against any Rails application that parses multipart posts.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
RackApplication
< 2.0.9.2>= 2.1.0, < 2.1.4.2>= 2.2.0, < 2.2.4.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed Rack versionRun `gem list rack` or check your Gemfile.lock for the rack gem version numberAffected if The version is less than 2.0.9.2, between 2.1.0 and 2.1.4.1, or between 2.2.0 and 2.2.4.0
-
Confirm Rack is in useCheck if your application uses Rack (common in all Rails apps) by looking for `require 'rack'` in your codebase or a Gemfile containing the rack gemAffected if Rack is loaded as a dependency in your application
-
Verify multipart parsing is enabledCheck if your application accepts file uploads or form data with `multipart/form-data` content type. This is typically enabled by default in Rails via ActionDispatch::Request parameter parsingAffected if Your application parses multipart requests (file uploads, form posts with attachments)
-
Locate the vulnerable parsing moduleThe vulnerable code is in the Rack multipart parser. Locate it by finding the rack gem installation path and checking the multipart.rb file in the lib/rack directoryAffected if The multipart.rb file exists in your Rack library and processes RFC2183 boundary parameters
Your environment is affected if you are running a vulnerable Rack version (less than 2.0.9.2, 2.1.0-2.1.4.1, or 2.2.0-2.2.4.0) and your application parses multipart form requests.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped2.0.9.22.1.4.22.2.4.1
Upgrade Rack to version 2.0.9.2, 2.1.4.2, 2.2.4.1, or 3.0.0.1 (whichever is compatible with your Rails version) to patch the algorithmic complexity issue in boundary parsing.
Rack 2.0.9.2, 2.1.4.2, 2.2.4.1, or 3.0.0.1 (depending on your version line)
- 1. Identify the current version of Rack gem in your Gemfile or Gemfile.lock
- 2. Determine which Rack 2.x version line you are currently on (2.0.x, 2.1.x, or 2.2.x)
- 3. Run 'bundle update rack' to update to the latest version in your current line, or specify the exact version
- 4. For Rack 2.0.x users: upgrade to version 2.0.9.2 or later
- 5. For Rack 2.1.x users: upgrade to version 2.1.4.2 or later
- 6. For Rack 2.2.x users: upgrade to version 2.2.4.1 or later
- 7. Alternatively, upgrade to Rack 3.0.0.1 or later for the latest major version
- 8. Run your test suite to verify the upgrade does not break functionality
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Rack
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-44572 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2022-44572 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data