Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
💎 RubyGems

GHSA-9mg6-x45v-hcfm

HIGH

activeadmin vulnerable to stored persistent cross-site scripting (XSS) in dynamic form legends

Also known asCVE-2024-37031
Published
Jun 2, 2024
Updated
Mar 13, 2026
Affected
2 pkgs
Patched
2 / 2
Exploits
None indexed

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.3%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk27th percentile+0.12%
0.00%0.28%0.57%0.85%0.3%0.3%Dec 25Apr 26Jun 26

EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.

Blast Radius

2 pkgs affected
💎activeadmin💎activeadmin

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects RubyGems packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Impact

Users settings their active admin form legends dynamically may be vulnerable to stored XSS, as long as its value can be injected directly by a malicious user.

For example:

  • A public web application allows users to create entities with arbitrary names.
  • Active Admin is used to administrate these entities through a private backend.
  • The form to edit these entities in the private backend has the following shape (note the dynamic name value dependent on an attribute of the resource):
  form do |f|
    f.inputs name: resource.name do
      f.input :name
      f.input :description
    end

    f.actions
  end

Then a malicious user could create an entity with a payload that would get executed in the active admin administrator's browser.

Both form blocks with an implicit or explicit name (i.e., both form resource.name or form name: resource.name would suffer from the problem), where the value of the name can be arbitrarily set by non admin users.

Patches

The problem has been fixed in ActiveAdmin 3.2.2 and ActiveAdmin 4.0.0.beta7.

Workarounds

Users can workaround this problem without upgrading by explicitly escaping the form name using an HTML escaping utility. For example:

  form do |f|
    f.inputs name: ERB::Util.html_escape(resource.name) do
      f.input :name
      f.input :description
    end

    f.actions
  end

Upgrading is of course recommended though.

References

https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/xss/#stored-xss-attacks

Affected Packages

2 total 2 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
💎RubyGemsactiveadminall versions3.2.2
💎RubyGemsactiveadmin4.0.0.beta1&&< 4.0.0.beta74.0.0.beta7

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for activeadmin. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

  2. Fix

    Update activeadmin to 3.2.2 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-9mg6-x45v-hcfm is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. Workarounds

    If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-9mg6-x45v-hcfm is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-9mg6-x45v-hcfm. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact Users settings their active admin form legends dynamically may be vulnerable to stored XSS, as long as its value can be injected directly by a malicious user. For example: * A public web application allows users to create entities with arbitrary names. * Active Admin is used to administrate these entities through a private backend. * The form to edit these entities in the private backend has the following shape (note the dynamic `name` value dependent on an attribute of the `resource`): ```ruby form do |f| f.inputs name: resource.name do f.input :name f.input :
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-9mg6-x45v-hcfm in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-9mg6-x45v-hcfm across RubyGems dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.