Skip to content

GHSA-c48m-32m9-vx93 CVE-2026-92951

vm2 Custom Module Resolver Can Bypass the External Package Allowlist by Loading a Colliding Host Package

Critical npm
Severity
9.4 / 10
Critical · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.47%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 40.49% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-706 Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference
CWE-829 Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
3.11.7
Upgrade vm2 to this version or later

Description

Summary

vm2 is a sandbox library for isolating and executing untrusted JavaScript code inside a Node.js process. It can restrict access to built-in modules and external packages.

When NodeVM enables an external allowlist together with a custom resolve callback, vm2 checks the requested package name with a non-exact match. For example, if the allowlist only permits left-pad, an attacker can still bypass the check with a colliding package name such as evil-left-pad, because it contains the allowlisted name.

If the colliding package already exists in a host path resolvable by the custom resolver, or if the target application's custom resolver / dependency-management workflow downloads the package and places it in a resolvable path, vm2 loads and executes that package in the host context. This lets sandboxed code bypass the module allowlist and may further lead to host code execution.

Details

NodeVM supports require.external to configure which external npm packages sandboxed code may load. It also supports a custom resolver through require.resolve. This combination is commonly used in business plugin systems, user-script platforms, or sandbox execution environments: the application allows only a small set of trusted dependencies while using a custom resolver that points to the application's own package directory.

The vulnerability is in the allowlist pre-check logic before the custom resolver is called. vm2 generates a regular expression from the external allowlist and uses it to check the original package name supplied by sandboxed code. However, the regular expression is not anchored to the full package-name boundary, so it performs a substring match on the original package name.

For example, with the following configuration:

new NodeVM({
  require: {
    external: ['left-pad'],
    resolve: id => require.resolve(id, { paths: [customRoot] }),
    context: 'host',
    builtin: []
  }
})

The intended policy is that sandboxed code can only load left-pad. However, because vm2 uses a non-exact match similar to /left\-pad/ for the requested package name, names such as evil-left-pad and left-pad-backdoor also pass the allowlist pre-check.

After evil-left-pad passes the check, vm2 calls the custom resolver configured by the application. If the resolver can find that colliding package in a host-resolvable path, vm2 adds the returned path to the loadable list and, in context: 'host' mode, loads the package with the host require(). At that point, the package's top-level code executes in the host context instead of being constrained by sandbox restrictions such as NodeVM's builtin: [].

In local verification, the PoC only allows external: ['left-pad'] and sets builtin: [], so sandboxed code cannot directly load child_process. However, after the sandboxed code executes require('evil-left-pad'), vm2 still loads the colliding package from a host path. The colliding package's top-level code successfully invokes the host child_process module and prints HOST_EXEC.

This issue does not mean that vm2 automatically downloads malicious packages from npm at runtime. The attack requires the colliding package to already be in a path resolvable by the custom resolver, or for the target application's own dependency resolution / download workflow to place that package in such a path. This precondition limits the affected scenarios, but it does not change the core vulnerability: the external allowlist is not enforced against complete package-name boundaries, allowing sandboxed code to load a host package that the application did not authorize.

PoC

An independent PoC is attached in the poc directory. The PoC installs vm2 3.11.5, creates a temporary host package directory, and writes an unauthorized evil-left-pad package into it.

Run the following from the poc directory:

npm install
node poc.js

When the vulnerability is present, the output is similar to:

[+] vm2 version: 3.11.5
[+] customRoot: /tmp/vm2-resolver-poc-xxxxxx/custom
[+] Direct sandbox require("child_process") is blocked: ENOTFOUND
[+] Unrelated package is blocked: ENOTFOUND
[+] require("evil-left-pad") result: HOST_EXEC
[+] RESULT: VULNERABLE

HOST_EXEC is produced by the top-level code of the evil-left-pad package through host-side child_process.execFileSync(), demonstrating that the unauthorized package has executed in the host context.

Expected result: when the external allowlist only contains left-pad, evil-left-pad should be rejected.

Actual result: evil-left-pad passes the check because it contains the left-pad substring and then executes in the host context.

Impact

Under the affected configuration, an attacker can load a colliding host package that is not allowed by the external allowlist through sandboxed code, breaking NodeVM's module access control.

If the attacker can control or influence the contents of the colliding package, for example by placing a malicious package through a plugin upload directory, a user-controllable dependency directory, a private registry synchronization directory, an application-specific dependency download workflow, or another path reachable by the resolver, the attacker can further execute code in the host Node.js process context. The attacker may read files, environment variables, and secrets accessible to the host process, modify host-writable data, or interrupt the host service.

The main exploitation prerequisites are:

  • The application uses vm2 NodeVM to execute untrusted or low-trust JavaScript code.
  • The application enables a require.external allowlist instead of allowing all external packages.
  • The application configures a custom require.resolve.
  • The colliding package already exists in a path resolvable by that custom resolver, or the application's workflow downloads / synchronizes it into that path.
  • The application loads external packages in the host context, or keeps the relevant default behavior.

If the deployed custom resolver only searches a fixed dependency directory that is fully trusted and cannot be influenced by an attacker, practical exploitability is reduced. However, in scenarios such as plugin systems, user scripts, uploadable dependency packages, private package-source synchronization, or multi-tenant sandbox platforms, this vulnerability can bypass the sandbox boundary.

Credit

This vulnerability was discovered by:

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
vm2
< 3.11.7
3.11.7

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.

vm2 npm → 3.11.7

npm
npm install vm2@3.11.7
yarn
yarn add vm2@3.11.7
pnpm
pnpm add vm2@3.11.7

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 9.4

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
High
Integrity (subsequent systems)
High
Availability (subsequent systems)
High
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 9.9

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-706: Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference

The product uses a name or reference to access a resource, but the name/reference resolves to a resource that is outside of the intended control sphere.

CWE-829: Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere

The product imports, requires, or includes executable functionality (such as a library) from a source that is outside of the intended control sphere.

How to prevent it
  • 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].
  • 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-45] provide this capability.
  • 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.
  • 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: 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.
  • 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, 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.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls. Many file inclusion problems occur because the programmer assumed that certain inputs could not be modified, especially for cookies and URL components.
  • 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].

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-489w-w794-jq94
vm2: NodeVM zlib Buffers expose pooled host memory across the VM boundary
High Also affects vm2
GHSA-2v2p-6j97-cjg9
vm2: Host Promise rejection from an exposed constructor can terminate the vm2 host process
Medium Also affects vm2
GHSA-5h3f-q97h-ccvc
vm2: NodeVM custom resolution bypasses external path boundaries
Critical Also affects vm2
GHSA-pq68-rvw4-xp4r
vm2 contains a sandbox escape vulnerability
Critical Also affects vm2
GHSA-f8gf-w286-fmq2
vm2: `allowAsync: false` can be bypassed through Promise thenable assimilation in VM and NodeVM
High Also affects vm2
GHSA-6rh5-qq4q-97xh
vm2: NodeVM builtin denylist bypass via fs/promises despite -fs, allowing host filesystem writes
High Also affects vm2
GHSA-8686-vhfx-7r3j
vm2: NodeVM node:-prefixed negative builtin deny bypass exposes child_process
Critical Also affects vm2
GHSA-wjwh-qqvp-g4p4
vm2 sandbox escape via WebAssembly.compileStreaming Promise species bypass
Critical Also affects vm2
Is this in your code?

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