GHSA-82fw-gwwq-j7x9 CVE-2026-84373
Vitest: Path Traversal / Arbitrary File Read via @vitest/mocker Redirect Mock
- Severity
- 5.9 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.53%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 44.68% 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
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
Summary
@vitest/mocker registers a redirect mock's target path without validating it
against the dev server's file-serving allowlist. An attacker who can reach the
dev server's WebSocket can register a redirect mock pointing outside the project
root; when the mocked module is requested, the plugin's load hook returns
readFile(<attacker path>) as the module source, disclosing local files.
This is exploitable without authentication only through the public
mockerPlugin / standalone interceptorPlugin exports (used by third-party dev
servers), which register the handler on Vite's unauthenticated HMR socket.
Vitest's own browser mode registers mocks over a token-authenticated RPC and
is not remotely reachable by default (see Scope).
Affected code
packages/mocker/src/node/interceptorPlugin.ts.
The load hook is the file-read sink:
if (mock.type === 'redirect') {
return readFile(mock.redirect, 'utf-8')
}
mock.redirect is derived from client input at registration time with no
boundary check:
if (event.type === 'redirect') {
const redirectUrl = new URL(event.redirect)
event.redirect = join(server.config.root, redirectUrl.pathname)
}
registry.register(event)
There is no server.fs.allow / server.fs.deny check and no assertion that the
resolved path stays within the project root.
Registration paths and trust boundaries
- Public
mockerPlugin/interceptorPlugin(unauthenticated). InconfigureServer, the plugin registersserver.ws.on('vitest:interceptor:register', …)on Vite's HMR WebSocket. That socket performs no token, Origin, or same-origin check, so any client that can reach it can register a redirect mock. This is the path the "unauthenticated" impact applies to. - Vitest browser mode (authenticated). Mocks register over the browser RPC
(
registerMock), which sits behind a per-run token (isValidApiRequest, a randomapi.token). The interceptor'sconfigureServersocket is not used for registration here (in v5 it does not run at all, as the plugin is injected per environment). The same missing boundary check exists on the authenticated RPC path, but reaching it requires the token, so it is not a remote-unauthenticated read.
Path handling
new URL(redirect).pathname combined with join(root, pathname) does not
confine reads to the root:
- Special/hierarchical schemes (
file:,http:) are normalized by WHATWG URL, so..segments are collapsed and the result stays under the root. Payloads of the formfile:///../../etc/passwddo not escape. - A non-special (opaque) scheme preserves
..inpathname, sojoin(root, "../../…/etc/passwd")resolves outside the root and reads an arbitrary file.
Even without escaping the root, the missing server.fs check allows reading any
in-root file the dev server would otherwise refuse to serve (for example an
in-root .env or source that is denied by server.fs.deny).
Scope / preconditions
- This is a development-server issue. The dev server binds to
localhostby default and is not reachable from the network unless the developer exposes it (server.host/0.0.0.0, a LAN bind, or a proxy). - A raw (non-browser) client against a reachable server bypasses browser origin and CORS protections entirely and can both register the mock and read the response.
- A browser-based drive-by against a localhost server is substantially mitigated
by Vite defaults: the default CORS origin allowlist is limited to
localhostorigins, andserver.allowedHostsblocks DNS-rebinding, so a cross-origin page cannot read the file contents back.
Impact
Disclosure of local files readable by the dev-server process (source, in-root
.env/secrets, and, via the opaque-scheme payload, files outside the project
root). No integrity or availability impact.
Affected versions
Present since @vitest/mocker was introduced.
- Affected:
@vitest/mocker>= 2.1.0 (shipped invitestand@vitest/browser>= 2.1.0), through 4.1.x and the 5.0.0 pre-releases. - Fixed: Vitest 4.1.11 and 5.0.0. Older majors (2.1.x, 3.x) are not maintained and are not planned to receive the fix.
Fix
Validate the resolved redirect target against Vite's file-serving allowlist
(isFileLoadingAllowed) before registering it, at every registration site, and
stop registering the interceptor WebSocket events in Vitest's browser mode
(mocks there flow through the authenticated RPC).
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| @vitest/mocker | >= 2.1.0, < 4.1.11 |
4.1.11 |
| @vitest/mocker | >= 5.0.0-beta.1, < 5.0.0-rc.2 |
5.0.0-rc.2 |
| @vitest/mocker | >= 2.1.0, < 4.1.11 |
4.1.11 |
| @vitest/mocker | >= 5.0.0-beta.1, < 5.0.0-rc.2 |
5.0.0-rc.2 |
| vitest | >= 2.1.0, < 4.1.11 |
4.1.11 |
| vitest | >= 5.0.0-beta.1, < 5.0.0-rc.2 |
5.0.0-rc.2 |
| vitest | >= 2.1.0, < 4.1.11 |
4.1.11 |
| vitest | >= 5.0.0-beta.1, < 5.0.0-rc.2 |
5.0.0-rc.2 |
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.
@vitest/mocker npm → 4.1.11
- npm
npm install @vitest/mocker@4.1.11- yarn
yarn add @vitest/mocker@4.1.11- pnpm
pnpm add @vitest/mocker@4.1.11
vitest npm → 4.1.11
- npm
npm install vitest@4.1.11- yarn
yarn add vitest@4.1.11- pnpm
pnpm add vitest@4.1.11
Severity breakdown
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
Advisories
Fixes and patches
- github.com/vitest-dev/vitest/pull/10972
- github.com/vitest-dev/vitest/pull/10974
- github.com/vitest-dev/vitest/commit/51edf2b072902aec6d30c90ebaafd8f121c6f9d8
- github.com/vitest-dev/vitest/commit/8ff9b9a9efca7c6cfd5243569440de8d7a33aec4
- github.com/vitest-dev/vitest/commit/fe5a11d3ceac5ec10d6d7d21a46d4caca132c48f
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-xp26-3454-mjgp Vitest: Windows backslash traversal bypasses the @vitest/mocker redirect allowlist fix | Medium | Also affects @vitest/mocker |
| GHSA-qxg6-89mg-rqv8 Vitest: Code injection via unauthenticated manual mock registration | Medium | Also affects @vitest/mocker |
| GHSA-5xrq-8626-4rwp When Vitest UI server is listening, arbitrary file can be read and executed | Medium | Also affects vitest |
| GHSA-9crc-q9x8-hgqq Vitest allows Remote Code Execution when accessing a malicious website while Vitest API server is listening | High | Also affects vitest |
| GHSA-hjqx-j4rw-g7xv zip: Arbitrary file write outside the extraction directory, because ZipArchive::extract validates symlink targets lexically. | High | Same weakness, CWE-22 |
| GHSA-9jrw-8xf7-xqhq Keycloak vulnerable to information disclosure through arbitrary filesystem path probing | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-22 |
| GHSA-4vjg-vx72-qq4g systeminformation has path traversal in Linux networkStats() that allows symlink-based file disclosure outside /sys/class/net | Low | Same weakness, CWE-22 |
| GHSA-m65p-9j7q-6w33 MLflow vulnerable to arbitrary file read on unauthenticated servers via prompt model version source | High | Same weakness, CWE-22 |
Credits: 1491342590
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