| ▲ | Government Rails Site Hit Hours After CVE Patch(rietta.com) |
| 37 points by rietta 2 hours ago | 9 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | comrade1234 an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Do you have to have matlab running on your rails server for this to happen? |
| |
| ▲ | bradly an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Not running, but supported. You can check your app with: bin/rails runner '
require "vips"
puts "ruby-vips #{Vips::VERSION} libvips #{Vips.version(0)}.#{Vips.version(1)}.#{Vips.version(2)}"
begin
Vips::Operation.new("matload")
puts "matload PRESENT - this build can reach libmatio"
rescue Vips::Error
puts "matload ABSENT - this build cannot reach libmatio"
end
'
This is from the Rails official docs for the CVE which, interestingly, they only released as an agent skill. https://github.com/rails/rails-forensics-CVE-2026-66066/blob... | |
| ▲ | fishtoaster an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think the answer is no - this would affect any Rails app with default settings that uses ActiveStorage. The "Preconditions" recap at the bottom here has all the appropriate caveats: https://ethiack.com/info-hub/research/kindarails2shell-how-a... | |
| ▲ | rietta an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I am not sure, but my read on the original disclosure is no. libvips itself has a variant processor for matlab v5 files, which the exploit took advantage of. | | |
| ▲ | kawsper an hour ago | parent [-] | | libvips also have a block_untrusted mode where it will block unsafe loaders, .mat seems to be marked as untrusted: vips -l
VipsForeignLoadMat (matload), load mat from file (.mat), priority=0, untrusted, is_a, get_flags, get_flags_filename, header, load
| | |
| ▲ | rietta an hour ago | parent [-] | | Correct, which is how the ActiveStorage gem was patched. After this, Rails raises a Vips::Error: VipsForeignLoad exception on an attempted variant render of a malicious file. I plan on writing a technical detail post soon with some more code level details and "indicators of compromise" but this one was getting long. This is more for management to understand why wait to patch is a major issue. The discovery to active exploit attempt timeline is the story here. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dorianmariecom an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| i thought cloudflare would protect against those no? |
| |
| ▲ | rietta an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Cloudflare or a WAF may or may not help. These can often catch and block specific bot traffic, but not every attack payload is delivered naively. It would be part of a defense in depth. Having the underlying vulnerability fixed is critically important. For those on AWS, WAF & Shield is also very useful but at the end of the day these let legitimate traffic through, such as legitimately uploading a file that only in its contents is malformed. | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Where does it say the site used Cloudflare? |
|
