GHSA-72r4-9c5j-mj57 CVE-2026-59194

pnpm: `patch-remove` could delete project-selected files outside the patches directory

High npm

Severity: 7.1 / 10; High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.40%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 34.42% 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'); CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path
Fix: 10.34.4; Upgrade pnpm to this version or later

Description

Summary

The patch-remove deletion-scope issue tracked as GHSA-72r4-9c5j-mj57 / CAND-PNPM-030 has been addressed in pnpm.

A crafted patch entry could resolve outside the configured patches directory and cause pnpm patch-remove to delete an arbitrary reachable file. This patch validates the configured directory and every resolved target before unlinking anything, then deletes the final directory entry without following it.

Security boundary

Traversal and absolute paths that resolve outside the configured patches directory are rejected before deletion.
Parent directories are canonicalized before deletion, including the case where a nested symlink points outside and the final outside entry is itself dangling.
The complete batch is validated before any file is removed.
Component-aware predicates accept valid names beginning with .. while still rejecting parent traversal, Windows drive escapes, and UNC escapes.
Valid files and symlinked patch directories whose canonical targets remain below the lockfile directory continue to work.
A final symlink inside a valid patch directory is unlinked without following its target, including when the target is outside or dangling.

Exploit replay

Before the patch, a workspace patchedDependencies path that resolved outside the project caused pnpm patch-remove to delete the external sentinel. A second replay used a nested parent symlink and a dangling outside victim: realpath() returned ENOENT, yet the victim was still removed. With this patch, both paths are rejected and the outside entries remain intact.

Files changed

patching/commands/src/isSubdirectory.ts performs component-aware containment checks.
patching/commands/src/patchRemove.ts validates the full batch, canonicalizes parents, and unlinks final entries without following them.
patching/commands/test/{isSubdirectory,patchRemove}.test.ts covers traversal, nested symlinks, dangling victims, and valid removals.

Commands run

$ pnpm --filter @pnpm/patching.commands test test/isSubdirectory.test.ts test/patchRemove.test.ts
PASS: 11 tests across 2 suites
$ pnpm --filter @pnpm/patching.commands run compile
PASS
$ git diff --check
PASS

Validation

Focused handler and path-predicate suites: 11 passed across 2 suites.
Package-wide ESLint: passed.
Package TypeScript build: passed.
Commit hooks, Commitlint, and git diff --check: passed.
The broader integration harness was environment-blocked because it writes outside the available temporary root; focused handler tests used /private/tmp.

Patches

10.34.4: https://github.com/pnpm/pnpm/commit/352ae489f1b14ffdc19d2c6eacb1b06b098c2ddc 11.7.0: https://github.com/pnpm/pnpm/commit/612a2e6a7333f2b061f452a21b6e62c1c161747f

Compatibility

Missing patch files remain no-ops. Valid symlinked patch directories continue to work when their canonical target stays inside the lockfile directory, and final symlinks are removed without touching their targets. patch-remove is not yet in pacquet's command surface, so no Rust-side parity change is required.

Remaining risk

Portable Node APIs do not expose directory-fd-relative unlinkat(). A local attacker who can replace an already validated parent directory before the unlink may still win a time-of-check/time-of-use race. The reproduced repository-controlled traversal and symlink paths do not require that concurrent capability and are blocked by this patch.

Written by an agent (Codex, GPT-5).

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
pnpm	`< 10.34.4`	`10.34.4`
pnpm	`>= 11.0.0, < 11.7.0`	`11.7.0`

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.

pnpm npm → `10.34.4`

npm

npm install pnpm@10.34.4

yarn

yarn add pnpm@10.34.4

pnpm

pnpm add pnpm@10.34.4

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.1

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

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

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.

CWE-73: External Control of File Name or Path

The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.