Skip to content

Oj: Use-After-Free in Oj::Parser array_class/hash_class GC Marking

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 16, 2026 in ohler55/oj • Updated Jun 19, 2026

Package

bundler oj (RubyGems)

Affected versions

< 3.17.2

Patched versions

3.17.3

Description

Summary

Oj::Parser in usual mode does not mark array_class and hash_class references during garbage collection. If GC runs after the class is assigned but before a parse, the class object is reclaimed, leaving the parser holding a dangling VALUE. The subsequent parse call dereferences the freed object, producing a segfault.

Version

  • Software: oj gem
  • Affected: all versions with ext/oj/usual.c / ext/oj/parser.c
  • Latest tested: 3.17.1 (confirmed present)

Details

The parser_mark function in ext/oj/parser.c is registered as the GC mark callback for the parser's TypedData. If array_class (stored as d->array_class in the Usual struct) is not passed to rb_gc_mark, the GC does not know it is referenced and may collect it.

When close_array_class (usual.c:405) later calls rb_funcallv on the collected class VALUE, it accesses freed memory, crashing at RIP: 0x7f... / 0x0000000000000000.

Crash output:

array_class finalized
about to parse
[BUG] Segmentation fault at 0x0000000000000000
    close_array_class+0x194  /ext/oj/usual.c:405
    parse+0x17b3             /ext/oj/parser.c:715
    parser_parse+0x10b       /ext/oj/parser.c:1408
RIP: 0x7fd1b46d68b7  RBP: 0x0000000000000000

Reproduce

require 'oj'
p = Oj::Parser.new(:usual,
  array_class: (ac = Class.new { def <<(_x); end }))
ObjectSpace.define_finalizer(ac, proc { warn 'array_class finalized' })
ac = nil
GC.start(full_mark: true, immediate_sweep: true)  # collect the class
p.parse('[1]')  # segfault

References

@ohler55 ohler55 published to ohler55/oj Jun 16, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 19, 2026
Reviewed Jun 19, 2026
Last updated Jun 19, 2026

Severity

High

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 v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA: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.
(17th percentile)

Weaknesses

Use After Free

The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory belongs to the code that operates on the new pointer. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-54901

GHSA ID

GHSA-vwm4-62gf-x745

Source code

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