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.

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.

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 34230 rack has quadratic complexity in
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
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • 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
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
High · CVSS 7.5CVE-2026-34230GHSA-V569-HP3G-36WR

Rack has quadratic complexity in Rack::Utils.select_best_encoding via wildcard Accept-Encoding headerCVE-2026-34230

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-34230 records a High severity (CVSS 7.5) vulnerability in Rack has quadratic complexity in Rack::Utils.select_best_encoding via wildcard Accept-Encoding header. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps rack (rubygems), rack (rubygems), rack (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 Apr 2, 2026Updated Sep 10, 2026Source checked Oct 25, 2026First seen by HOL Aug 7, 2026Material review Sep 10, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
High · CVSS 7.5
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
3 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 7.5. 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 rack (rubygems), rack (rubygems), rack (rubygems). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
rackrubygems>=0 <2.2.232.2.23
rackrubygems>=3.0.0.beta1 <3.1.213.1.21
rackrubygems>=3.2.0 <3.2.63.2.6

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for rack, rack, rack.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update rack to 2.2.23; rack to 3.1.21; rack to 3.2.6 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Apr 2, 2026

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

    Sep 10, 2026

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

    Aug 7, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • NVD vulnerability recordnvd.nist.gov
Upstream source description

## Summary `Rack::Utils.select_best_encoding` processes `Accept-Encoding` values with quadratic time complexity when the header contains many wildcard (`*`) entries. Because this method is used by `Rack::Deflater` to choose a response encoding, an unauthenticated attacker can send a single request with a crafted `Accept-Encoding` header and cause disproportionate CPU consumption on the compression middleware path. This results in a denial of service condition for applications using `Rack::Deflater`. ## Details `Rack::Utils.select_best_encoding` expands parsed `Accept-Encoding` values into a list of candidate encodings. When an entry is `*`, the method computes the set of concrete encodings by subtracting the encodings already present in the request: ```ruby if m == "*" (available_encodings - accept_encoding.map(&:first)).each do |m2| expanded_accept_encoding << [m2, q, preference] end else expanded_accept_encoding << [m, q, preference] end ``` Because `accept_encoding.map(&:first)` is evaluated inside the loop, it is recomputed for each wildcard entry. If the request contains `N` wildcard entries, this produces repeated scans over the full parsed header and causes quadratic behavior. After expansion, the method also performs additional work over `expanded_accept_encoding`, including per-entry deletion, which further increases the cost for large inputs. `Rack::Deflater` invokes this method for each request when the middleware is enabled: ```ruby Utils.select_best_encoding(ENCODINGS, Utils.parse_encodings(accept_encoding)) ``` As a result, a client can trigger this expensive code path simply by sending a large `Accept-Encoding` header containing many repeated wildcard values. For example, a request with an approximately 8 KB `Accept-Encoding` header containing about 1,000 `*;q=0.5` entries can cause roughly 170 ms of CPU time in a single request on the `Rack::Deflater` path, compared to a negligible baseline for a normal header. This issue is distinct from CVE-2024-26146. That issue concerned regular expression denial of service during `Accept` header parsing, whereas this issue arises later during encoding selection after the header has already been parsed. ## Impact Any Rack application using `Rack::Deflater` may be affected. An unauthenticated attacker can send requests with crafted `Accept-Encoding` headers to trigger excessive CPU usage in the encoding selection logic. Repeated requests can consume worker time disproportionately and reduce application availability. The attack does not require invalid HTTP syntax or large payload bodies. A single header-sized request is sufficient to reach the vulnerable code path. ## Mitigation * Update to a patched version of Rack in which encoding selection does not repeatedly rescan the parsed header for wildcard entries. * Avoid enabling `Rack::Deflater` on untrusted traffic. * Apply request filtering or header size / format restrictions at the reverse proxy or application boundary to limit abusive `Accept-Encoding` values.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
Missing Auth
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
Not reported
Source
OSV
Source checked
Oct 25, 2026
References
4 linked sources
Open source record