RackApplication
CVE-2025-27610
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 · uneditedRack provides an interface for developing web applications in Ruby. Prior to versions 2.2.13, 3.0.14, and 3.1.12, `Rack::Static` can serve files under the specified `root:` even if `urls:` are provided, which may expose other files under the specified `root:` unexpectedly. The vulnerability occurs because `Rack::Static` does not properly sanitize user-supplied paths before serving files. Specifically, encoded path traversal sequences are not correctly validated, allowing attackers to access files outside the designated static file directory. By exploiting this vulnerability, an attacker can gain access to all files under the specified `root:` directory, provided they are able to determine then path of the file. Versions 2.2.13, 3.0.14, and 3.1.12 contain a patch for the issue. Other mitigations include removing usage of `Rack::Static`, or ensuring that `root:` points at a directory path which only contains files which should be accessed publicly. It is likely that a CDN or similar static file server would also mitigate the issue.
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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
< 2.2.13>= 3.0.0, < 3.0.14>= 3.1.0, < 3.1.12CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 · scoped2.2.133.0.143.1.12
Rack 2.2.13, 3.0.14, or 3.1.12 (select based on your major version branch)
- Identify the current Rack version in use by checking Gemfile.lock or running `gem list rack`
- For Rack 2.x users: Update Gemfile to specify `gem 'rack', '~> 2.2.13'` or run `bundle update rack`
- For Rack 3.0.x users: Update Gemfile to specify `gem 'rack', '~> 3.0.14'` or run `bundle update rack`
- For Rack 3.1.x users: Update Gemfile to specify `gem 'rack', '~> 3.1.12'` or run `bundle update rack`
- Run `bundle install` or `bundle update` to apply the changes
- Verify the installed Rack version matches the fixed release using `gem list rack`
- Test the application to ensure Rack::Static functionality works correctly with the new version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-27610 — 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-2025-27610 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