GHSA-968w-xfqw-vp9q CVE-2026-49406
Deno: BYONM module resolution allows `package.json` main path traversal to bypass `--allow-read` restrictions
- Severity
- 5.5 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.18%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 7.05% 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
2.7.12- Upgrade deno to this version or later
Description
Summary
When Deno was run in BYONM mode (nodeModulesDir: "manual"), the module resolver did not validate that a package's resolved entrypoint stayed within its node_modules/<pkg>/ directory. A malicious package.json whose main field contained .. segments was able to resolve to an arbitrary path on disk, and the resolver then read that file without consulting the --allow-read allowlist. This let a require("evil-pkg") call return the contents of a file that a direct Deno.readTextFileSync(...) call would have been blocked from reading.
Details
In BYONM mode, Deno resolved npm packages directly from a user-managed node_modules tree. Resolution of require("pkg") proceeded by reading pkg/package.json, taking the main field, joining it to the package directory, and loading the result as a module.
The path joined from main was not constrained to the package root. A package.json such as:
{ "main": "../../../secret.json" }
resolved to node_modules/pkg/../../../secret.json, escaping node_modules entirely. The BYONM permission check accepted any path that contained a node_modules component and did not reject .. traversal, so the resolved path was loaded without a read-permission check.
Because resolution loaded JSON entrypoints by parsing their contents and returning them through require, this exposed the contents of arbitrary .json files reachable by the OS user to the requiring code, even when --allow-read had been narrowed to a specific directory.
The same file accessed via Deno.readTextFileSync was correctly blocked. The bug was that module resolution did not enforce the same read-permission boundary that the filesystem APIs enforced.
Proof of concept
The reporter supplied a self-contained PoC. Layout:
/tmp/deno_byonm_poc/
├── app/
│ ├── deno.json (BYONM enabled)
│ ├── exploit.ts (require("evil-pkg"))
│ └── node_modules/
│ └── evil-pkg/
│ └── package.json (main: "../../../secret.json")
└── secret.json (outside --allow-read scope)
Run:
deno run --no-prompt --allow-read=/tmp/deno_byonm_poc/app exploit.ts
Observed:
Deno.readTextFileSync("/tmp/deno_byonm_poc/secret.json")— blocked, as expected.require("evil-pkg")— returned the parsed contents ofsecret.json, bypassing the read allowlist.
A control run with BYONM disabled (--no-config) blocked the require call.
Impact
The vulnerability allowed a hostile npm package installed under a BYONM node_modules to read JSON files outside the directories granted via --allow-read, up to the privileges of the OS user running Deno. In practice this exposed configuration and credential files (.env.json, cloud credentials, package lockfiles, etc.) that the user had deliberately excluded from the read scope.
The vulnerability did not grant any capability beyond what the OS user already held, did not affect runs that granted unrestricted --allow-read, and required the user to have installed and then required a hostile package, i.e. an existing supply-chain compromise. The reason it warranted a security advisory rather than a routine bug fix is that Deno's permission model
promised that --allow-read=<scope> was a hard boundary even over untrusted npm code, and that promise was broken.
Not affected:
- Runs without BYONM (default npm resolution went through a separate code path that rejected the traversal).
- Runs with full
--allow-read(no boundary to bypass). - Non-JSON entrypoints, in practice —
.js/.cjs/.mjstargets executed rather than exposing file contents, which already implied attacker code execution within the granted permission set.
Workarounds
Users on unpatched versions could mitigate by:
- Avoiding BYONM mode (
nodeModulesDir: "manual") for projects that depended on untrusted packages. - Auditing
package.jsonmainfields innode_modulesfor..segments before running. - Granting
--allow-readonly when the read scope already covered every file the OS user could see (in which case there was no boundary to bypass and no additional exposure).
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| deno | < 2.7.12 |
2.7.12 |
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 → 2.7.12
- cargo
cargo update -p deno --precise 2.7.12
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- 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
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-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