GHSA-8vxj-4cph-c596 CVE-2025-48935 RUSTSEC-2025-0138
Deno has --allow-read / --allow-write permission bypass in `node:sqlite`
Critical
crates.io
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.49%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 42.05% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
Summary
It is possible to bypass Deno's read/write permission checks by using ATTACH DATABASE statement.
PoC
// poc.js
import { DatabaseSync } from "node:sqlite"
const db = new DatabaseSync(":memory:");
db.exec("ATTACH DATABASE 'test.db' as test;");
db.exec("CREATE TABLE test.test (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, name TEXT);");
$ deno poc.js
Affected versions
crates.io
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.
deno crates.io → 2.2.5
- cargo
cargo update -p deno --precise 2.2.5
deno_node crates.io → 0.134.0
- cargo
cargo update -p deno_node --precise 0.134.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Proof of concept
CVSS 3.1 9.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
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-x2qc-cmh9-f4hf Deno: Denial of service via non-ASCII bytes in WebSocket response headers | Medium | Also affects deno |
| GHSA-8xpq-cjcf-3wh9 Deno: Permission Bypass via Unicode Normalization Mismatch on macOS (APFS) | High | Also affects deno |
| GHSA-968w-xfqw-vp9q Deno: BYONM module resolution allows `package.json` main path traversal to bypass `--allow-read` restrictions | Medium | Also affects deno |
| GHSA-v8fw-85r8-5m23 Deno: Node TCPWrap numeric hostname aliases bypass --deny-net resolved-IP deny checks | Medium | Also affects deno |
| GHSA-9xg4-qhm4-g43w Deno: Miller-Rabin Primality Test Allows Zero Rounds | High | Also affects deno |
| GHSA-7xh3-mhg9-jcw8 Deno: Command Injection via spawnSync & spawn on Windows | High | Also affects deno |
| GHSA-4c8g-jvcx-v4hv Deno: process.loadEnvFile() bypasses env permission checks and mutates process.env with only read access | Medium | Also affects deno |
| GHSA-83pc-3rw9-qpwj Deno: WebSocket API sandbox bypass via missing post-DNS check | Medium | Also affects deno |
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