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 34830 racksendfile header based x accel mapping regex
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
Medium · CVSS 5.9CVE-2026-34830GHSA-QV7J-4883-HWH7

Rack::Sendfile header-based X-Accel-Mapping regex injection enables unauthorized X-Accel-RedirectCVE-2026-34830

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-34830 records a Medium severity (CVSS 5.9) vulnerability in Rack::Sendfile header-based X-Accel-Mapping regex injection enables unauthorized X-Accel-Redirect. 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 26, 2026First seen by HOL Aug 7, 2026Material review Sep 10, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
Medium · CVSS 5.9
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
3 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 5.9. 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::Sendfile#map_accel_path` interpolates the value of the `X-Accel-Mapping` request header directly into a regular expression when rewriting file paths for `X-Accel-Redirect`. Because the header value is not escaped, an attacker who can supply `X-Accel-Mapping` to the backend can inject regex metacharacters and control the generated `X-Accel-Redirect` response header. In deployments using `Rack::Sendfile` with `x-accel-redirect`, this can allow an attacker to cause nginx to serve unintended files from configured internal locations. ## Details `Rack::Sendfile#map_accel_path` processes header-supplied mappings using logic equivalent to: ```ruby mapping.split(',').map(&:strip).each do |m| internal, external = m.split('=', 2).map(&:strip) new_path = path.sub(/\A#{internal}/i, external) return new_path unless path == new_path end ``` Here, `internal` comes from the `HTTP_X_ACCEL_MAPPING` request header and is inserted directly into a regular expression without escaping. This gives the header value regex semantics rather than treating it as a literal prefix. As a result, an attacker can supply metacharacters such as `.*` or capture groups to alter how the path substitution is performed. For example, a mapping such as: ```http X-Accel-Mapping: .*=/protected/secret.txt ``` causes the entire source path to match and rewrites the redirect target to a clean attacker-chosen internal path. This differs from the documented behavior of the header-based mapping path, which is described as a simple substitution. While application-supplied mappings may intentionally support regular expressions, header-supplied mappings should be treated as literal path prefixes. The issue is only exploitable when untrusted `X-Accel-Mapping` headers can reach Rack. One realistic case is a reverse proxy configuration that intends to set `X-Accel-Mapping` itself, but fails to do so on some routes, allowing a client-supplied header to pass through unchanged. ## Impact Applications using `Rack::Sendfile` with `x-accel-redirect` may be affected if the backend accepts attacker-controlled `X-Accel-Mapping` headers. In affected deployments, an attacker may be able to control the `X-Accel-Redirect` response header and cause nginx to serve files from internal locations that were not intended to be reachable through the application. This can lead to unauthorized file disclosure. The practical impact depends on deployment architecture. If the proxy always strips or overwrites `X-Accel-Mapping`, or if the application uses explicit configured mappings instead of the request header, exploitability may be eliminated. ## Mitigation * Update to a patched version of Rack that treats header-supplied `X-Accel-Mapping` values as literal strings rather than regular expressions. * Strip or overwrite inbound `X-Accel-Mapping` headers at the reverse proxy so client-supplied values never reach Rack. * Prefer explicit application-configured sendfile mappings instead of relying on request-header mappings. * Review proxy sub-locations and inherited header settings to ensure `X-Accel-Mapping` is consistently set on all backend routes.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
Secret Exfiltration
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
Not reported
Source
OSV
Source checked
Oct 26, 2026
References
4 linked sources
Open source record