GHSA-8xpq-cjcf-3wh9 CVE-2026-49401
Deno: Permission Bypass via Unicode Normalization Mismatch on macOS (APFS)
- Severity
- 7.3 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.20%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 9.44% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
2.7.14- Upgrade deno to this version or later
Description
Summary
Deno's permission system enforces filesystem and execution restrictions by
comparing the requested path against the path supplied to --deny-read,
--deny-write, --deny-run, or --deny-ffi. On macOS, that comparison was
done at the raw-byte level while the APFS filesystem treats different Unicode
spellings of the same name as the same file.
That means a program could reach a denied path by spelling it differently than
the deny rule. For example, with --deny-read=/secrets/passwörter.txt, a
script could still read the file by opening /secrets/passwo\u0308rter.txt
(NFD instead of NFC), or /SECRETS/PASSWÖRTER.txt (different case, since
default APFS volumes are case-insensitive). Other forms include ligature
characters (fi vs fi, ff vs ff, …) and German ß vs ss.
The denied path and the requested path differed at the byte level, so Deno's
permission check passed; the kernel then resolved them to the same inode and
served the file anyway. The same flaw affected --deny-write, --deny-run,
and --deny-ffi, which share the same path-comparison code.
Am I affected?
You are potentially affected if all of the following are true:
- You run Deno on macOS (the issue is specific to APFS path-equivalence rules; Linux and Windows are not affected by this variant).
- You rely on
--deny-read,--deny-write,--deny-run, or--deny-ffias a security boundary against less-trusted code — a dependency, plugin, or attacker-controlled input. - The protected path contains characters that have alternate Unicode
spellings — most commonly accented characters (
é,ñ,ö, …), Germanß, or Latin ligatures — or you rely on case-sensitivity on a default APFS volume.
If you only run fully trusted code, or your deny rules cover paths that are pure ASCII with no case-sensitive aliases, you are not exposed to this specific bypass.
Impact
A program running with broad --allow-read (or --allow-write /
--allow-run / --allow-ffi) but with --deny-* carve-outs for specific
paths could read, write, execute, or load via FFI those denied paths by
referring to them through a Unicode- or case-equivalent spelling. The sandbox
model on macOS was weaker than the flags suggested.
Workaround
If you cannot upgrade immediately:
- Prefer
--allow-*allowlists over--deny-*denylists. Allow rules match against the original specifier, so an attacker-supplied alternate spelling will not match a path you didn't explicitly grant. - Do not rely on case-sensitivity of paths on macOS for security boundaries; default APFS volumes are case-insensitive.
Fix
On macOS, Deno now normalizes both the deny-rule path and the requested path to NFC and applies Unicode case folding before comparing them. This matches how APFS resolves paths at the inode level, so byte-different but equivalent spellings are now rejected by the same deny rule.
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| deno | < 2.7.14 |
2.7.14 |
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 → 2.7.14
- cargo
cargo update -p deno --precise 2.7.14
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-176: Improper Handling of Unicode Encoding
The product does not properly handle when an input contains Unicode encoding.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
- 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.
- 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.
CWE-41: Improper Resolution of Path Equivalence
The product is vulnerable to file system contents disclosure through path equivalence. Path equivalence involves the use of special characters in file and directory names. The associated manipulations are intended to generate multiple names for the same object.
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.
- Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
- 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.
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-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 |
| GHSA-cpgj-f7g3-2pp2 Deno: `fetch()` API sandbox bypass via missing DNS resolution 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