GHSA-7vhp-vf5g-r2fw CVE-2025-69263
pnpm Has Lockfile Integrity Bypass that Allows Remote Dynamic Dependencies
- Severity
- 7.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.47%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.07% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-494 Download of Code Without Integrity Check
- Fix
10.26.0- Upgrade pnpm to this version or later
Description
Summary
HTTP tarball dependencies (and git-hosted tarballs) are stored in the lockfile without integrity hashes. This allows the remote server to serve different content on each install, even when a lockfile is committed.
Details
When a package depends on an HTTP tarball URL, pnpm's tarball resolver returns only the URL without computing an integrity hash:
resolving/tarball-resolver/src/index.ts:
return {
resolution: {
tarball: resolvedUrl,
// No integrity field
},
resolvedVia: 'url',
}
The resulting lockfile entry has no integrity to verify:
remote-dynamic-dependency@http://example.com/pkg.tgz:
resolution: {tarball: http://example.com/pkg.tgz}
version: 1.0.0
Since there is no integrity hash, pnpm cannot detect when the server returns different content.
This affects:
- HTTP/HTTPS tarball URLs (
"pkg": "https://example.com/pkg.tgz") - Git shorthand dependencies (
"pkg": "github:user/repo") - Git URLs (
"pkg": "git+https://github.com/user/repo")
npm registry packages are not affected as they include integrity hashes from the registry metadata.
PoC
See attached pnpm-bypass-integrity-poc.zip
The POC includes:
- A server that returns different tarball content on each request
- A
malicious-packagethat depends on the HTTP tarball - A
victimproject that depends onmalicious-package
To run:
cd pnpm-bypass-integrity-poc
./run-poc.sh
The output shows that each install (with pnpm store prune between them) downloads different code despite having a committed lockfile.
Impact
An attacker who publishes a package with an HTTP tarball dependency can serve different code to different users or CI/CD environments. This enables:
- Targeted attacks based on request metadata (IP, headers, timing)
- Evasion of security audits (serve benign code during review, malicious code later)
- Supply chain attacks where the malicious payload changes over time
The attack requires the victim to install a package that has an HTTP/git tarball in its dependency tree. The victim's lockfile provides no protection.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| pnpm | < 10.26.0 |
10.26.0 |
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 → 10.26.0
- npm
npm install pnpm@10.26.0- yarn
yarn add pnpm@10.26.0- pnpm
pnpm add pnpm@10.26.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-494: Download of Code Without Integrity Check
The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Perform proper forward and reverse DNS lookups to detect DNS spoofing.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Encrypt the code with a reliable encryption scheme before transmitting. This will only be a partial solution, since it will not detect DNS spoofing and it will not prevent your code from being modified on the hosting site.
- 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]. Speficially, it may be helpful to use tools or frameworks to perform integrity checking on the transmitted code. When providing the code that is to be downloaded, such as for automatic updates of the software, then use cryptographic signatures for the code and modify the download clients to verify the signatures. Ensure that the implementation does not contain CWE-295, CWE-320, CWE-347, and related weaknesses. Use code signing technologies such as Authenticode. See references [REF-454] [REF-455] [REF-456].
- 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, 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.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-vx52-2968-3vc6 pnpm: Environment secrets exfiltrated via env-placeholder expansion in proxy settings read from an untrusted pnpm-workspace.yaml | High | Also affects pnpm |
| GHSA-2rx9-3g3h-c2jv pnpm: pacquet trust-lockfile install can create dependency symlinks outside the project | High | Also affects pnpm |
| GHSA-vq4v-j7r6-jq4m pnpm: A tarball dependency's manifest `name` escapes node_modules → arbitrary file write/overwrite on install | High | Also affects pnpm |
| GHSA-c59q-g84q-2gj5 pnpm: Virtual store linker path traversal via unvalidated depPath name in lockfileToDepGraph | High | Also affects pnpm |
| GHSA-qrv3-253h-g69c pnpm: Path traversal in configDependencies env lockfile allows symlink creation outside node_modules/.pnpm-config | High | Also affects pnpm |
| GHSA-72r4-9c5j-mj57 pnpm: `patch-remove` could delete project-selected files outside the patches directory | High | Also affects pnpm |
| GHSA-fr4h-3cph-29xv pnpm: Hoisted install imports lockfile alias outside node_modules | High | Also affects pnpm |
| GHSA-v23m-ccfg-pq9h pnpm: `stage download` writes outside its destination directory via manifest name/version traversal | High | Also affects pnpm |
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