GHSA-3f84-vwv5-r42g
Duplicate Advisory: vm2: GHSA-m283-3h24-438v fix bypass leads to host RCE via call/apply indirection
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- —
- No score published
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Duplicate Advisory
This advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-647f-g98j-qq25. This link is maintained to preserve external references.
Original Description
vm2 3.11.6 is vulnerable to a sandbox escape leading to remote code execution in the host Node.js process. The fix for GHSA-m283-3h24-438v is incomplete: the bridge gate at lib/bridge.js:1624 identity-checks only the direct call target when deciding whether to rebuild/sanitise a rejected host Promise value. Registering the rejection handler through Function.prototype.call or .apply indirection (e.g., p.then.call(p, undefined, cb)) makes the intercepted target host Function.prototype.call, so the sanitiser never runs and the raw host error reaches sandbox code with its own properties intact. If an embedder exposes a host-realm Promise to the sandbox (an async host function bridged via the sandbox option, or a NodeVM external module's async method) and that Promise rejects with an Error carrying a non-primitive own property referencing a host object (for example err.detail = process), untrusted code in the sandbox obtains a fully functional proxy to that host object and can execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the host process (e.g., e.detail.mainModule.require('child_process').execSync(...)). The direct p.then(undefined, cb), bind, and Reflect.apply forms are correctly sanitised. Fixed in vm2 3.11.7.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| vm2 | 1 listed versions | No fix yet |
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- High
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- High
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- High
- Exploit maturity
- Not defined
- Scope
- X
CVSS 3.1 10.0
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- 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. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
References
Advisories
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Withdrawn
- Last updated by the source
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-489w-w794-jq94 vm2: NodeVM zlib Buffers expose pooled host memory across the VM boundary | High | Also affects vm2 |
| GHSA-2v2p-6j97-cjg9 vm2: Host Promise rejection from an exposed constructor can terminate the vm2 host process | Medium | Also affects vm2 |
| GHSA-5h3f-q97h-ccvc vm2: NodeVM custom resolution bypasses external path boundaries | Critical | Also affects vm2 |
| GHSA-pq68-rvw4-xp4r vm2 contains a sandbox escape vulnerability | Critical | Also affects vm2 |
| GHSA-f8gf-w286-fmq2 vm2: `allowAsync: false` can be bypassed through Promise thenable assimilation in VM and NodeVM | High | Also affects vm2 |
| GHSA-6rh5-qq4q-97xh vm2: NodeVM builtin denylist bypass via fs/promises despite -fs, allowing host filesystem writes | High | Also affects vm2 |
| GHSA-8686-vhfx-7r3j vm2: NodeVM node:-prefixed negative builtin deny bypass exposes child_process | Critical | Also affects vm2 |
| GHSA-wjwh-qqvp-g4p4 vm2 sandbox escape via WebAssembly.compileStreaming Promise species bypass | Critical | Also affects vm2 |
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