Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.71% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2024
CVE-2024-32970High confidence
Cross-site Scripting (XSS) possible with maliciously formed HTML attribute names and values in Phlex
phlex-ruby · phlex
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-9P57-H987-4VGX ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
7.1HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Fix not verifiedHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs phlex-ruby phlex and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Open-source package ranges2 source-attributed ranges
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| RubyGemsphlex | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 0; fixed 1.9.3 | 1.9.3 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| RubyGemsphlex | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 1.10.0; fixed 1.10.2 | 1.10.2 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
Phlex is a framework for building object-oriented views in Ruby. In affected versions there is a potential cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability that can be exploited via maliciously crafted user data. Since the last two vulnerabilities https://github.com/phlex-ruby/phlex/security/advisories/GHSA-242p-4v39-2v8g and https://github.com/phlex-ruby/phlex/security/advisories/GHSA-g7xq-xv8c-h98c, we have invested in extensive browser tests. It was these new tests that helped us uncover these issues. As of now the project exercises every possible attack vector the developers can think of — including enumerating every ASCII character, and we run these tests in Chrome, Firefox and Safari. Additionally, we test against a list of 6613 known XSS payloads (see: payloadbox/xss-payload-list). The reason these issues were not detected before is the escapes were working as designed. However, their design didn't take into account just how recklessly permissive browsers are when it comes to executing unsafe JavaScript via HTML attributes. If you render an `<a>` tag with an `href` attribute set to a user-provided link, that link could potentially execute JavaScript when clicked by another user. If you splat user-provided attributes when rendering any HTML or SVG tag, malicious event attributes could be included in the output, executing JavaScript when the events are triggered by another user. Patches are available on RubyGems for all minor versions released in the last year. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade should configure a Content Security Policy that does not allow `unsafe-inline` which would effectively prevent this vulnerability from being exploited. Users who upgrade are also advised to configure a Content Security Policy header that does not allow `unsafe-inline`.
What
Phlex is a framework for building object-oriented views in Ruby. In affected versions there is a potential cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability that can be exploited via maliciously crafted user data. Since the last two vulnerabilities https://github.com/phlex-ruby/phlex/security/advisories/GHSA-242p-4v39-2v8g and https://github.com/phlex-ruby/phlex/security/advisories/GHSA-g7xq-xv8c-h98c, we have invested in extensive browser tests. It was these new tests that helped us uncover these issues. As of now the project exercises every possible attack vector the developers can think of — including enumerating every ASCII character, and we run these tests in Chrome, Firefox and Safari. Additionally, we test against a list of 6613 known XSS payloads (see: payloadbox/xss-payload-list). The reason these issues were not detected before is the escapes were working as designed. However, their design didn't take into account just how recklessly permissive browsers are when it comes to executing unsafe JavaScript via HTML attributes. If you render an `<a>` tag with an `href` attribute set to a user-provided link, that link could potentially execute JavaScript when clicked by another user. If you splat user-provided attributes when rendering any HTML or SVG tag, malicious event attributes could be included in the output, executing JavaScript when the events are triggered by another user. Patches are available on RubyGems for all minor versions released in the last year. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade should configure a Content Security Policy that does not allow `unsafe-inline` which would effectively prevent this vulnerability from being exploited. Users who upgrade are also advised to configure a Content Security Policy header that does not allow `unsafe-inline`.
Why
Attacker-controlled content can reach a browser as executable script without sufficient output encoding or sanitisation.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Phlex is a framework for building object-oriented views in Ruby. In affected versions there is a potential cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability that can be exploited via maliciously crafted user data. Since the last two vulnerabilities https://github.com/phlex-ruby/phlex/security/advisories/GHSA-242p-4v39-2v8g and https://github.com/phlex-ruby/phlex/security/advisories/GHSA-g7xq-xv8c-h98c, we have invested in extensive browser tests. It was these new tests that helped us uncover these issues. As of now the project exercises every possible attack vector the developers can think of — including enumerating every ASCII character, and we run these tests in Chrome, Firefox and Safari. Additionally, we test against a list of 6613 known XSS payloads (see: payloadbox/xss-payload-list). The reason these issues were not detected before is the escapes were working as designed. However, their design didn't take into account just how recklessly permissive browsers are when it comes to executing unsafe JavaScript via HTML attributes. If you render an `<a>` tag with an `href` attribute set to a user-provided link, that link could potentially execute JavaScript when clicked by another user. If you splat user-provided attributes when rendering any HTML or SVG tag, malicious event attributes could be included in the output, executing JavaScript when the events are triggered by another user. Patches are available on RubyGems for all minor versions released in the last year. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade should configure a Content Security Policy that does not allow `unsafe-inline` which would effectively prevent this vulnerability from being exploited. Users who upgrade are also advised to configure a Content Security Policy header that does not allow `unsafe-inline`.
Why
Attacker-controlled content can reach a browser as executable script without sufficient output encoding or sanitisation.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-79 ↗
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.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- phlex: < 1.9.3, >= 1.10.0, < 1.10.2
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 30 Apr 2024 · Last source change 2 Aug 2024, 02:27 UTC · CWE-79 · Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2024-1557
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.