I feel the title should tell that the releases are because of a directory traversal vulnerability: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rubyonrails-security/N...

This release only has one fix, but it's common to have multiple fixes. It would impractical to identify all fixes in a release title, and HN guidelines on titles are to "use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait"

Tangential security nitpick - doesn't it defeat the purpose to display SHA or MD5 sums for downloads over a non-ssl page?

A bad actor could easily modify these in a proxy etc when serving the page.

Edit: Unless the purpose isn't to prevent tampering, but for error-correction.

An attacker would have to modify the actual gem files in a way that would yield the same checksums, since the hashing is one way only.

The attack scenario is that the man-in-the-middle alters the checksums in the page to match the checksums of his backdoored version.

There's also an 'Unsafe Query Risk', which is not a CVE and does not have a patch.[0]

I believe this script[1] should expose some of those dangerous columns. There's still the join alias risk, but I'm not sure, other than parsing a schema.rb, how to get at those effectively.

[0] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rubyonrails-security...

[1] https://gist.github.com/KevinMcHugh/fab941ec3677f9a19ee0

something like this will find any associations that share a name with a column in each model: https://gist.github.com/jenseng/2039fd57f5db40779871

Thanks a lot for this script, I was going to check manually.

For all those who can't upgrade to the latest versions of Rails: Zweitag (my employer) maintains a Rails fork with security fixes applied to all Rails releases since 3.1.0.

https://github.com/zweitag/rails/branches

And for 3.0 and older: https://railslts.com/

The original CVE has been amended[1] since having *action in the route is not the only attack vector.

[1]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rubyonrails-security...