GHSA-4f78-qhmw-8j8m CVE-2026-70609

Electron: DevTools JavaScript Injection via Unsanitized Dock State Parameter

Medium npm

Severity: 5.7 / 10; Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.53%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 44.98% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-116 Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output; CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix: 39.8.7; Upgrade electron to this version or later

Description

Impact

The mode option of webContents.openDevTools() was not sanitized before use by the DevTools frontend. If an attacker can influence this value, script under their control may run in the DevTools context, which in unsandboxed configurations has access to Node.js.

Apps are only affected if untrusted input can reach the mode argument of openDevTools(), or if untrusted content can call openDevTools() on a <webview> it embeds. Apps that only ever pass a fixed dock mode are not affected.

Workarounds

Only pass fixed, allowlisted values (right, bottom, undocked, detach) as the DevTools mode, and do not expose openDevTools to untrusted content.

Fixed Versions

42.0.0-beta.1
41.2.0
40.9.0
39.8.7

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, email Electron at security@electronjs.org

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
electron	`< 39.8.7`	`39.8.7`
electron	`>= 40.0.0-alpha.1, < 40.9.0`	`40.9.0`
electron	`>= 41.0.0-alpha.1, < 41.2.0`	`41.2.0`
electron	`>= 42.0.0-alpha.1, < 42.0.0-beta.1`	`42.0.0-beta.1`

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

electron npm → `39.8.7`

npm

npm install electron@39.8.7

yarn

yarn add electron@39.8.7

pnpm

pnpm add electron@39.8.7

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.7

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: High
Privileges required: High
User interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Weakness

CWE-116: Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output

The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error. Alternately, use built-in functions, but consider using wrappers in case those functions are discovered to have a vulnerability.
Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. For example, stored procedures can enforce database query structure and reduce the likelihood of SQL injection.
Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
Architecture and Design: In some cases, input validation may be an important strategy when output encoding is not a complete solution. For example, you may be providing the same output that will be processed by multiple consumers that use different encodings or representations. In other cases, you may be required to allow user-supplied input to contain control information, such as limited HTML tags that support formatting in a wiki or bulletin board. When this type of requirement must be met, use an extremely strict allowlist to limit which control sequences can be used. Verify that the resulting syntactic structure is what you expect. Use your normal encoding methods for the remainder of the input.
Architecture and Design: Use input validation as a defense-in-depth measure to reduce the likelihood of output encoding errors (see CWE-20).
Requirements: Fully specify which encodings are required by components that will be communicating with each other.
Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

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

Packages

github.com/electron/electron

Timeline

Aug 5, 2026 Published
Oct 8, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-qqvq-6xgj-jw8g Electron affected by libvpx's heap buffer overflow in vp8 encoding	High Known exploited	Also affects electron
GHSA-j7hp-h8jx-5ppr libwebp: OOB write in BuildHuffmanTable	High Known exploited	Also affects electron
GHSA-995f-9x5r-2rcj Heap buffer overflow in GPU	Critical Known exploited	Also affects electron
GHSA-jr5w-w6x2-84p9 Electron: Mitigation for compromised eMudhra intermediate certificates	High	Also affects electron
GHSA-h3v5-h239-pg29 Electron: Off-screen rendering on macOS trusts GPU-supplied frame geometry	Low	Also affects electron
GHSA-3qxv-5xgr-q7w9 Electron: Frame subscription trusts GPU-supplied frame geometry	Low	Also affects electron
GHSA-997q-gvvc-jwmx Electron: openExternal permission requests can be attributed to the wrong origin	Medium	Also affects electron
GHSA-fw47-9c62-h3vw Electron: HID and USB permission checks can be attributed to the wrong origin	Medium	Also affects electron

Is this in your code?

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