Skip to content

rails-html-sanitize has XSS vulnerability with certain configurations

Low severity GitHub Reviewed Published Dec 2, 2024 in rails/rails-html-sanitizer • Updated Dec 3, 2024

Package

bundler rails-html-sanitizer (RubyGems)

Affected versions

= 1.6.0

Patched versions

1.6.1

Description

Summary

There is a possible XSS vulnerability with certain configurations of Rails::HTML::Sanitizer 1.6.0 when used with Rails >= 7.1.0 and Nokogiri < 1.15.7, or 1.16.x < 1.16.8.

  • Versions affected: 1.6.0
  • Not affected: < 1.6.0
  • Fixed versions: 1.6.1

Please note that the fix in v1.6.1 is to update the dependency on Nokogiri to 1.15.7 or >= 1.16.8.

Impact

A possible XSS vulnerability with certain configurations of Rails::HTML::Sanitizer may allow an attacker to inject content if HTML5 sanitization is enabled and the application developer has overridden the sanitizer's allowed tags in either of the following ways:

  • allow both "math" and "style" elements
  • or allow both "svg" and "style" elements

Code is only impacted if Rails is configured to use HTML5 sanitization, please see documentation for config.action_view.sanitizer_vendor and config.action_text.sanitizer_vendor for more information on these configuration options.

Code is only impacted if allowed tags are being overridden. Applications may be doing this in a few different ways:

  1. using application configuration to configure Action View sanitizers' allowed tags:
# In config/application.rb
config.action_view.sanitized_allowed_tags = ["math", "style"]
# or
config.action_view.sanitized_allowed_tags = ["svg", "style"]

see https://guides.rubyonrails.org/configuring.html#configuring-action-view

  1. using a :tags option to the Action View helper sanitize:
<%= sanitize @comment.body, tags: ["math", "style"] %>
<%# or %>
<%= sanitize @comment.body, tags: ["svg", "style"] %>

see https://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActionView/Helpers/SanitizeHelper.html#method-i-sanitize

  1. setting Rails::HTML5::SafeListSanitizer class attribute allowed_tags:
# class-level option
Rails::HTML5::SafeListSanitizer.allowed_tags = ["math", "style"]
# or
Rails::HTML5::SafeListSanitizer.allowed_tags = ["svg", "style"]

(note that this class may also be referenced as Rails::Html::SafeListSanitizer)

  1. using a :tags options to the Rails::HTML5::SafeListSanitizer instance method sanitize:
# instance-level option
Rails::HTML5::SafeListSanitizer.new.sanitize(@article.body, tags: ["math", "style"])
# or
Rails::HTML5::SafeListSanitizer.new.sanitize(@article.body, tags: ["svg", "style"])

(note that this class may also be referenced as Rails::Html::SafeListSanitizer)

  1. setting ActionText::ContentHelper module attribute allowed_tags:
ActionText::ContentHelper.allowed_tags = ["math", "style"]
# or
ActionText::ContentHelper.allowed_tags = ["svg", "style"]

All users overriding the allowed tags by any of the above mechanisms to include (("math" or "svg") and "style") should either upgrade or use one of the workarounds.

Workarounds

Any one of the following actions will work around this issue:

References

Credit

This vulnerability was responsibly reported by So Sakaguchi (mokusou) and taise.

References

@flavorjones flavorjones published to rails/rails-html-sanitizer Dec 2, 2024
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Dec 2, 2024
Reviewed Dec 2, 2024
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Dec 2, 2024
Last updated Dec 3, 2024

Severity

Low

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 Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity Low
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:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

EPSS score

0.045%
(17th percentile)

Weaknesses

CVE ID

CVE-2024-53985

GHSA ID

GHSA-w8gc-x259-rc7x

Source code

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