rubygems package report

Is commonmarker safe?

5 known vulnerabilities, worst severity HIGH.

cvss
9.8

how bad it is if exploited, out of 10

epss
1.5%

chance of exploitation in the next 30 days

xyz score
3.4

CyberXYZ composite, out of 10

fig. 01 — GHSA-fmx4-26r3-wxpf, the advisory selected below

// advisories

GHSA-fmx4-26r3-wxpf

HIGHCVE-2024-22051

CommonMarker uses cmark-gfm for rendering [Github Flavored Markdown](https://github.github.com/gfm/). An [integer overflow in cmark-gfm's table row parsing](https://github.com/github/cmark-gfm/security/advisories/GHSA-mc3g-88wq-6f4x) may lead to heap memory corruption when parsing tables who's marker rows contain more than UINT16MAX columns. The impact of this heap corruption ranges from Informati

Affected
< 0.23.4
Fixed in
0.23.4
Weakness
CWE-190
Published
2022-03-03
Source
github

GHSANVDMITREreferencereferencereferencereference

// dependencies

0 direct

Sign in for dependency paths and remediation

// ai model usage

Tracked for PyPI packages. HuggingFace models declare Python dependencies, so rubygems packages are not covered.

Checked 2026-09-22 at 02:36 UTC. The most recent advisory here was published 2023-08-08. Updated continuously from NVD, GHSA, OSV and CNA feeds.

Think a verdict here is wrong? Tell us — we respond within 2 business days.
Is commonmarker safe? rubygems package security report | CyberXYZ