GHSA-RQ8Q-P985-FJQ7

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-11-12 23:39 – Updated: 2026-11-12 23:39
VLAI
Summary
Action View: Possible XSS vulnerability in strip_tags
Details

Impact

strip_tags in Action View returns its sanitized output marked html_safe, but the underlying sanitizer encodes only &, < and >, leaving " and ' unencoded. Because ERB does not escape a string marked html_safe, untrusted input passed through strip_tags and rendered inside a quoted HTML attribute value could close the attribute and add new attributes, possibly leading to XSS. Applications that render strip_tags output from untrusted input inside an HTML attribute, for example in a title attribute or a <meta content> tag, are affected. Output rendered as element content is not affected.

Details

strip_tags now encodes " and ' in its output, as well as &, < and >, without double-encoding existing entities. Applications that use strip_tags output outside HTML, such as in a text template or JSON, now see &quot; and &#39; where they saw " and '; CGI.unescapeHTML decodes them. See the Action View CHANGELOG.

Workarounds

Pass strip_tags output to an attribute through a tag helper, which escapes attribute values, for example tag.a(title: strip_tags(user_input)).

Releases

The fixed releases are available at the normal locations.

Patches for those who cannot upgrade at once: - 8.1: https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/568b19cb860322885593e308a7f27aceb779e9d7.patch - 8.0: https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/c3772a10f405f9644125cbb484adfd2aa7a25a59.patch

Credit

This issue was responsibly reported by HackerOne researcher lucasluitjes.

Severity
6.1 (Medium)
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "RubyGems",
        "name": "actionview"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "8.1.0.beta1"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "8.1.4.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "RubyGems",
        "name": "actionview"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "8.0.5.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-126070"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-11-12T23:39:41Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-11-10T21:19:25Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\n`strip_tags` in Action View returns its sanitized output marked `html_safe`, but the underlying sanitizer encodes only `\u0026`, `\u003c` and `\u003e`, leaving `\"` and `\u0027` unencoded. Because ERB does not escape a string marked `html_safe`, untrusted input passed through `strip_tags` and rendered inside a quoted HTML attribute value could close the attribute and add new attributes, possibly leading to XSS. Applications that render `strip_tags` output from untrusted input inside an HTML attribute, for example in a `title` attribute or a `\u003cmeta content\u003e` tag, are affected. Output rendered as element content is not affected.\n\n### Details\n`strip_tags` now encodes `\"` and `\u0027` in its output, as well as `\u0026`, `\u003c` and `\u003e`, without double-encoding existing entities. Applications that use `strip_tags` output outside HTML, such as in a text template or JSON, now see `\u0026quot;` and `\u0026#39;` where they saw `\"` and `\u0027`; `CGI.unescapeHTML` decodes them. See the Action View CHANGELOG.\n\n### Workarounds\nPass `strip_tags` output to an attribute through a tag helper, which escapes attribute values, for example `tag.a(title: strip_tags(user_input))`.\n\n### Releases\nThe fixed releases are available at the normal locations.\n\nPatches for those who cannot upgrade at once:\n- 8.1: https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/568b19cb860322885593e308a7f27aceb779e9d7.patch\n- 8.0: https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/c3772a10f405f9644125cbb484adfd2aa7a25a59.patch\n\n### Credit\nThis issue was responsibly reported by HackerOne researcher [lucasluitjes](https://hackerone.com/lucasluitjes).",
  "id": "GHSA-rq8q-p985-fjq7",
  "modified": "2026-11-12T23:39:41Z",
  "published": "2026-11-12T23:39:41Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/rails/rails/security/advisories/GHSA-rq8q-p985-fjq7"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-126070"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/568b19cb860322885593e308a7f27aceb779e9d7"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/c3772a10f405f9644125cbb484adfd2aa7a25a59"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/rails/rails"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/rails/rails/releases/tag/v8.0.5.2"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/rails/rails/releases/tag/v8.1.4.1"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/actionview/GHSA-rq8q-p985-fjq7.yml"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Action View: Possible XSS vulnerability in strip_tags"
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Loading timeline…




    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.