Skip to content

🚨 [security] Update actionview 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3 (patch) #113

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

🚨 [security] Update actionview 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3 (patch) #113

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

depfu[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@depfu depfu bot commented Jun 9, 2023 •
edited
Loading

🚨 Your current dependencies have known security vulnerabilities 🚨

This dependency update fixes known security vulnerabilities. Please see the details below and assess their impact carefully. We recommend to merge and deploy this as soon as possible!

Here is everything you need to know about this update. Please take a good look at what changed and the test results before merging this pull request.

What changed?

↗️ actionview (indirect, 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3) · Repo · Changelog

Security Advisories 🚨

🚨 rails-ujs vulnerable to DOM Based Cross-site Scripting contenteditable HTML Elements

NOTE: rails-ujs is part of Rails/actionview since 5.1.0.

There is a potential DOM based cross-site scripting issue in rails-ujs
which leverages the Clipboard API to target HTML elements that are
assigned the contenteditable attribute. This has the potential to
occur when pasting malicious HTML content from the clipboard that
includes a data-method, data-remote or data-disable-with attribute.

This vulnerability has been assigned the CVE identifier CVE-2023-23913.

Not affected: < 5.1.0
Versions Affected: >= 5.1.0
Fixed Versions: 6.1.7.3, 7.0.4.3

Impact
If the specified malicious HTML clipboard content is provided to a
contenteditable element, this could result in the arbitrary execution
of javascript on the origin in question.

Releases
The FIXED releases are available at the normal locations.

Workarounds
We recommend that all users upgrade to one of the FIXED versions.
In the meantime, users can attempt to mitigate this vulnerability
by removing the contenteditable attribute from elements in pages
that rails-ujs will interact with.

Patches
To aid users who aren’t able to upgrade immediately we have provided
patches for the two supported release series. They are in git-am
format and consist of a single changeset.

  • rails-ujs-data-method-contenteditable-6-1.patch - Patch for 6.1 series
  • rails-ujs-data-method-contenteditable-7-0.patch - Patch for 7.0 series

Please note that only the 7.0.Z and 6.1.Z series are
supported at present, and 6.0.Z for severe vulnerabilities.

Users of earlier unsupported releases are advised to upgrade as
soon as possible as we cannot guarantee the continued availability
of security fixes for unsupported releases.

Credits
We would like to thank ryotak 15 for reporting this!

  • rails-ujs-data-method-contenteditable-6-1.patch (8.5 KB)
  • rails-ujs-data-method-contenteditable-7-0.patch (8.5 KB)
  • rails-ujs-data-method-contenteditable-main.patch (8.9 KB)
Release Notes

6.1.7.3 (from changelog)

  • Ignore certain data-* attributes in rails-ujs when element is contenteditable

    [CVE-2023-23913]

6.1.7.2 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

Does any of this look wrong? Please let us know.

Commits

See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by 4 commits:

✳️ rails (6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3) · Repo

Release Notes

6.1.7.3

Active Support

Active Model

  • No changes.

Active Record

  • No changes.

Action View

  • Ignore certain data-* attributes in rails-ujs when element is contenteditable

    [CVE-2023-23913]

Action Pack

  • No changes.

Active Job

  • No changes.

Action Mailer

  • No changes.

Action Cable

  • No changes.

Active Storage

  • No changes.

Action Mailbox

  • No changes.

Action Text

  • No changes.

Railties

  • No changes.

6.1.7.2

Active Support

  • No changes.

Active Model

  • No changes.

Active Record

  • No changes.

Action View

  • No changes.

Action Pack

  • Fix domain: :all for two letter TLD

    This fixes a compatibility issue introduced in our previous security
    release when using domain: :all with a two letter but single level top
    level domain domain (like .ca, rather than .co.uk).

Active Job

  • No changes.

Action Mailer

  • No changes.

Action Cable

  • No changes.

Active Storage

  • No changes.

Action Mailbox

  • No changes.

Action Text

  • No changes.

Railties

  • No changes.

Does any of this look wrong? Please let us know.

Commits

See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by 4 commits:

↗️ actioncable (indirect, 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3) · Repo · Changelog

Release Notes

6.1.7.3 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

6.1.7.2 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

Does any of this look wrong? Please let us know.

Commits

See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by 4 commits:

↗️ actionmailbox (indirect, 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3) · Repo · Changelog

↗️ actionmailer (indirect, 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3) · Repo · Changelog

Release Notes

6.1.7.3 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

6.1.7.2 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

Does any of this look wrong? Please let us know.

Commits

See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by 4 commits:

↗️ actionpack (indirect, 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3) · Repo · Changelog

Release Notes

6.1.7.3 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

6.1.7.2 (from changelog)

  • Fix domain: :all for two letter TLD

    This fixes a compatibility issue introduced in our previous security release when using domain: :all with a two letter but single level top level domain domain (like .ca, rather than .co.uk).

Does any of this look wrong? Please let us know.

Commits

See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by 4 commits:

↗️ actiontext (indirect, 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3) · Repo · Changelog

Release Notes

6.1.7.3 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

6.1.7.2 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

Does any of this look wrong? Please let us know.

Commits

See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by 4 commits:

↗️ activejob (indirect, 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3) · Repo · Changelog

Release Notes

6.1.7.3 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

6.1.7.2 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

Does any of this look wrong? Please let us know.

Commits

See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by 4 commits:

↗️ activemodel (indirect, 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3) · Repo · Changelog

Release Notes

6.1.7.3 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

6.1.7.2 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

Does any of this look wrong? Please let us know.

Commits

See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by 4 commits:

↗️ activerecord (indirect, 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3) · Repo · Changelog

Release Notes

6.1.7.3 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

6.1.7.2 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

Does any of this look wrong? Please let us know.

Commits

See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by 4 commits:

↗️ activestorage (indirect, 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3) · Repo · Changelog

Release Notes

6.1.7.3 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

6.1.7.2 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

Does any of this look wrong? Please let us know.

Commits

See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by 4 commits:

↗️ activesupport (indirect, 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3) · Repo · Changelog

Security Advisories 🚨

🚨 Possible XSS Security Vulnerability in SafeBuffer#bytesplice

There is a vulnerability in ActiveSupport if the new bytesplice method is called on a SafeBuffer with untrusted user input.
This vulnerability has been assigned the CVE identifier CVE-2023-28120.

Versions Affected: All. Not affected: None Fixed Versions: 7.0.4.3, 6.1.7.3

Impact

ActiveSupport uses the SafeBuffer string subclass to tag strings as html_safe after they have been sanitized.
When these strings are mutated, the tag is should be removed to mark them as no longer being html_safe.

Ruby 3.2 introduced a new bytesplice method which ActiveSupport did not yet understand to be a mutation.
Users on older versions of Ruby are likely unaffected.

All users running an affected release and using bytesplice should either upgrade or use one of the workarounds immediately.

Workarounds

Avoid calling bytesplice on a SafeBuffer (html_safe) string with untrusted user input.

Release Notes

6.1.7.3 (from changelog)

6.1.7.2 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

Does any of this look wrong? Please let us know.

Commits

See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by 4 commits:

↗️ railties (indirect, 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3) · Repo · Changelog

Release Notes

6.1.7.3 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

6.1.7.2 (from changelog)

  • No changes.

Does any of this look wrong? Please let us know.

Commits

See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by 4 commits:

Depfu Status

Depfu will automatically keep this PR conflict-free, as long as you don't add any commits to this branch yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting with @depfu rebase.

All Depfu comment commands
@​depfu rebase
Rebases against your default branch and redoes this update
@​depfu recreate
Recreates this PR, overwriting any edits that you've made to it
@​depfu merge
Merges this PR once your tests are passing and conflicts are resolved
@​depfu cancel merge
Cancels automatic merging of this PR
@​depfu close
Closes this PR and deletes the branch
@​depfu reopen
Restores the branch and reopens this PR (if it's closed)
@​depfu pause
Ignores all future updates for this dependency and closes this PR
@​depfu pause [minor|major]
Ignores all future minor/major updates for this dependency and closes this PR
@​depfu resume
Future versions of this dependency will create PRs again (leaves this PR as is)

@depfu depfu bot added the depfu label Jun 9, 2023
@depfu depfu bot changed the title 🚨 [security] Update actionview 6.1.5 → 6.1.7.3 (minor) 🚨 [security] Update actionview 6.1.7.1 → 6.1.7.3 (patch) Sep 25, 2025
@depfu depfu bot force-pushed the depfu/update/actionview-6.1.7.3 branch from b9bdd0f to 65c90ed Compare September 25, 2025 21:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
depfu
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
0 participants