GHSA-7q3f-wx44-378m CVE-2026-92945
vm2: External module allowlist uses a raw prefix test, so a prefix-sharing sibling package is treated as allowlisted
- Severity
- 2.3 / 10
- Low · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.28%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 20.21% 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-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
3.11.7- Upgrade vm2 to this version or later
Description
Summary
isPathAllowedForModule decides whether a resolved path belongs to an allowlisted external module using a raw string prefix test. node_modules/foo2 starts with node_modules/foo, so a package whose name merely shares a prefix with an allowlisted one is treated as being inside it, and a relative require from the allowlisted package reaches it even with transitive loading disabled.
Where it is
lib/resolver-compat.js, lines 122 to 132, quoted from HEAD 7a1f5100b96f48d34e0fe104ab37c0acc5944f92:
isPathAllowedForModule(path, mod) {
if (!super.isPathAllowed(path)) return false;
if (mod) {
if (mod.allowTransitive) return true;
if (path.startsWith(mod.path)) {
const rem = path.slice(mod.path.length);
if (!/(?:^|[\\/])node_modules(?:$|[\\/])/.test(rem)) return true;
}
}
return this.externals.some(regex => regex.test(path));
}
With mod.path of .../node_modules/foo and a resolved path of .../node_modules/foo2/index.js, startsWith is true and rem is 2/index.js, which contains no node_modules segment, so the function returns true.
The node_modules test in rem is what stops a genuine transitive dependency from slipping through. It does not stop a sibling, because a sibling's remainder never contains that segment.
Impact
Code running in NodeVM under an external module allowlist with transitive: false can reach a package that was not allowlisted, provided an allowlisted package performs a relative require to a prefix-sharing sibling.
Two preconditions are worth stating plainly rather than leaving implicit. The deployment must already have such a package layout, and an allowlisted package must have a reachable code path that does the relative require. This is not something the attacker creates; it is something they find. That narrows it considerably, and it is why I have not scored it higher.
Reachability
NodeVM.run at lib/nodevm.js:506 executes the script. require comes from createRequireForModule at lib/setup-node-sandbox.js:168-172 and reaches the resolver callback at lib/nodevm.js:380-384. LegacyResolver.resolveFull at lib/resolver-compat.js:145-160 sets currMod for direct requires, the relative specifier resolves through DefaultResolver.resolveFull and tryFile at lib/resolver.js:327-330, and the authorization decision lands on the function above.
Suggested fix
Require a separator after the prefix, so a sibling cannot match:
if (path === mod.path || path.startsWith(mod.path + path.sep)) {
That is the same anchoring the rem regex already applies to node_modules, applied one level earlier.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| vm2 | < 3.11.7 |
3.11.7 |
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.
vm2 npm → 3.11.7
- npm
npm install vm2@3.11.7- yarn
yarn add vm2@3.11.7- pnpm
pnpm add vm2@3.11.7
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 2.3
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- Low
- 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 4.2
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- 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.
CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
- 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 authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
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