HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.
  • CIGARPoint your coding agent at the right lines and cut its token bill by about a third.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.
  • Gauntlet benchmarkGuard tested with real coding agents: safe work runs, risky actions stop.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2026 126083 action pack possible ip spoofing in action
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard

Get HOL Guard for your computer

HOL Guard is a free desktop app that watches what coding agents such as Claude Code, Codex and Cursor run, read and install, and asks you before anything risky happens.

  • Download for macOS
  • Windows download
  • Linux download

Free. macOS 13+ on Apple silicon, Windows x64, Linux AppImage. Other ways to install

Star HOL Guard on GitHub to download
Runs on
macOS 13 or later on Apple silicon, Windows x64 and Linux x86_64.
Price
Free. Paid plans add Guard Cloud for teams. See pricing
Where your data stays
On your computer. Guard Cloud is optional.
Token savings
33% to 38% lower spend across three coding agents in our CIGAR benchmark.

HOL

HOL builds open infrastructure for AI agents: HOL Guard, a directory of AI plugins and MCP servers, an AI agent registry and the open HCS standards.

  • GitHub (opens in a new tab)
  • X (Twitter) (opens in a new tab)
  • YouTube (opens in a new tab)
  • Telegram (opens in a new tab)

HOL Guard

  • What is HOL Guard
  • Features
  • Cut coding agent token costs (CIGAR)
  • Install Guard
  • Download the desktop app
  • Pricing
  • Guard for teams
  • Compare Guard
  • Release notes

Guard for your AI tool

  • Guard for Claude Code
  • Guard for Codex
  • Guard for Cursor
  • Guard for GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Guard for OpenCode
  • Guard for Pi and Oh My Pi
  • Guard for Hermes
  • Guard for OpenClaw
  • All supported AI tools

Research and security

  • Gauntlet: Guard tested with real agents
  • CIGAR token benchmark
  • Research
  • AI security hub
  • Security advisories
  • Active CVEs in AI tools
  • AI agent security guides
  • Extensions and coverage

Plugins and MCP servers

  • Browse AI plugins
  • New plugin launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins

AI agent registry

  • Best AI agents
  • Best ERC-8004 agents
  • Best Virtuals agents
  • Best A2A agents
  • Best x402 payable agents
  • Submit an ERC-8004 contract
  • Feature your agent

Developers

  • Guard docs
  • Documentation index
  • Developer hub
  • Registry API reference
  • OpenAPI spec
  • Registry OpenAPI spec
  • Run in Postman (opens in a new tab)
  • HCS standards

Company

  • About HOL
  • Blog
  • Contribute to HOL
  • Guard contributors
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Affiliate program
  • Contact

Copyright ยฉ 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Back to active CVEs
High ยท CVSS 7.4CVE-2026-126083GHSA-2GFF-2MMG-M73P

Action Pack: Possible IP spoofing in Action Dispatch RemoteIpCVE-2026-126083

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-126083 records a High severity (CVSS 7.4) vulnerability in Action Pack: Possible IP spoofing in Action Dispatch RemoteIp. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps actionpack (rubygems). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Nov 10, 2026Updated Nov 10, 2026Source checked Nov 10, 2026First seen by HOL Nov 10, 2026Material review Nov 10, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
High ยท CVSS 7.4
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
1 mapped package or product
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 7.4. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps actionpack (rubygems). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
actionpackrubygems>=8.1.0.beta1,<8.1.4.18.1.4.1

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for actionpack.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update actionpack to 8.1.4.1 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Nov 10, 2026

    Evidence: source:ghsa:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Nov 10, 2026

    Evidence: source:ghsa:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Nov 10, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
Upstream source description

### Impact Since Rails 8.1.0, `ActionDispatch::RemoteIp` derives `request.remote_ip` from `Rack::Request#forwarded_for`, which under Rack 3 reads the RFC 7239 `Forwarded` header in preference to `X-Forwarded-For`. When a reverse proxy appends the client address to `X-Forwarded-For` but passes a client-supplied `Forwarded` header through unchanged, `request.remote_ip` returns an address chosen by the client, and the IP spoofing check does not raise, because it compares only `Client-Ip` with the forwarded addresses. An unauthenticated attacker could therefore spoof `request.remote_ip`, possibly bypassing IP-based access controls and rate limits keyed on the client address (including the default `by:` of `rate_limit`), and falsifying the client address in logs. ### Details The 8.1.0 change ([2d084af8](https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/2d084af8444a7b6b868c7cbb256172007871e78d)) switched `ActionDispatch::RemoteIp` from reading `X-Forwarded-For` directly to Rack's `forwarded_for`, in order to reuse Rack's port handling. Rails continues to honor `Forwarded`, the standard header. In the fixed releases, when `config.action_dispatch.ip_spoofing_check` is enabled (the default), `ActionDispatch::RemoteIp` also compares the first untrusted client address in `Forwarded` with the first untrusted client address in `X-Forwarded-For`, as exact strings, and raises `ActionDispatch::RemoteIp::IpSpoofAttackError` when both headers are present and the addresses differ. Deployments whose proxies report the client address inconsistently between the two headers will receive this error after upgrading. See the `actionpack` CHANGELOG. ### Affected applications An application is affected if it meets all of these requirements: - Runs Rails 8.1.0 through 8.1.4 with Rack 3. Under Rack 2.2, `forwarded_for` reads only `X-Forwarded-For`. - Is served behind a proxy that does not remove or overwrite a client-supplied `Forwarded` header. - Relies on `request.remote_ip` for access control, rate limiting, or auditing. The fix detects a spoofed `Forwarded` header only when the proxy also sets `X-Forwarded-For`. An application whose proxy passes a client-supplied `Forwarded` header through and sets no `X-Forwarded-For` remains exposed after upgrading, and should configure the proxy to remove or overwrite `Forwarded`, or apply the workaround below. ### Mitigation - Upgrade to a fixed version of `actionpack`. - Configure reverse proxies to remove or overwrite any client-supplied `Forwarded` header. ### Workarounds Applications whose proxies set `X-Forwarded-For` can make Rack ignore the `Forwarded` header, restoring the client address resolution of Rails 8.0, by setting `Rack::Request.forwarded_priority = [:x_forwarded]` in an initializer. This setting is available in Rack 3.0.0 and later, and it also causes Rack to ignore `Forwarded` when determining the request scheme, host, and port. ### Releases The fixed releases are available at the normal locations. Patches for those who cannot upgrade at once: - 8.1: https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/2a01a5ac521184419d9a92fa2c25e102e68cd227.patch ### Versions affected - actionpack >= 8.1, < 8.1.4.1 ### Credit This issue was responsibly reported by HackerOne researcher [luryus](https://hackerone.com/luryus).

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Related CVEs

  • Action Pack: Possible restoration of destroyed sessions in Action Dispatch CacheStoreSame actionpack package
  • Active Storage: Possible DoS vulnerability in Active Storage filename handlingSame rubygems ecosystem
  • Active Support: Possible XSS vulnerability in Active Support MessagePack serializerSame rubygems ecosystem
  • Active Support: Possible DoS vulnerability in Active Support safe_constantizeSame rubygems ecosystem
  • Active Storage: Possible circumvention of file size limits in Active Storage direct uploads to Google Cloud StorageSame rubygems ecosystem
  • Active Storage: Possible arbitrary file read and remote code execution in Active Storage video previews, analysis and image processingSame rubygems ecosystem

Record context

Vulnerability class
Missing Auth
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-348
Source
GitHub Security Advisories
Source checked
Nov 10, 2026
References
5 linked sources
Open source record