Skip to content

GHSA-c59q-g84q-2gj5 CVE-2026-82392

pnpm: Virtual store linker path traversal via unvalidated depPath name in lockfileToDepGraph

High npm
Severity
7.1 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.61%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 49.48% 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
10.34.5
Upgrade pnpm to this version or later

Description

Summary

The virtual store linker constructs package installation directories using path.join(modules, pkgName) where pkgName is extracted from lockfile packages keys via dp.parse(depPath).name without validation. A crafted pnpm-lock.yaml with traversal sequences in depPath keys (e.g., ../../../tmp/pwned@1.0.0) causes package content to be written to arbitrary filesystem paths during pnpm install.

This is an incomplete fix of GHSA-fr4h-3cph-29xv — the safeJoinModulesDir containment helper was applied to the hoisted linker and symlinkDependency but NOT to the virtual store linker's lockfileToDepGraph.ts:233.

Details

Root Cause

dp.parse() at pnpm11/deps/path/src/index.ts:135 extracts the package name as:

const name = dependencyPath.substring(0, sepIndex)

This is a raw substring operation with zero validation that name is a valid npm package name. A depPath of ../../../tmp/pwned@1.0.0 yields name = '../../../tmp/pwned'.

Vulnerable Code Path

  1. pnpm-lock.yaml → lockfile.packages['../../../../../../../tmp/pwned@1.0.0'] (attacker-controlled lockfile key)
  2. nameVerFromPkgSnapshot(depPath, pkgSnapshot) at lockfile/utils/src/nameVerFromPkgSnapshot.ts:16 → calls dp.parse(depPath) → returns { name: '../../../../../../../tmp/pwned' }
  3. lockfileToDepGraph.ts:232 → modules = path.join(dirInVirtualStore, 'node_modules')
  4. lockfileToDepGraph.ts:233 → dir = path.join(modules, pkgName) → resolves to /tmp/pwned (ESCAPES virtual store)
  5. storeController.importPackage(depNode.dir, ...) → writes package content to the traversed path

Why Existing Defenses Don't Catch It

  • depPathToFilename() — replaces / with + for the dirInVirtualStore path, but pkgName comes SEPARATELY from dp.parse() and is NOT passed through this function
  • verifyLockfileResolutions() — validates dependency map keys (aliases) via isValidDependencyAlias(), but never validates the depPath keys themselves
  • Lockfile parser — yaml.load(lockfileRawContent) with no schema validation on packages keys
  • importPackage() — accepts targetDir and passes it directly to cafsStore.importPackage(targetDir, ...) with zero containment check
  • Integrity verification — requires a real fetchable package but does not validate the destination path

Escalation to RCE (non-default config)

When dangerouslyAllowAllBuilds: true is configured (or the traversal package name is in the explicit allowBuilds list), the same traversed path is used in the rebuild phase at after-install/src/index.ts:402,470. The attacker's postinstall script then executes with the victim's shell access. Under default config, allowBuild returns false for unknown packages, limiting impact to arbitrary file write.

Also Affected (PnP linker)

When nodeLinker: pnp is configured, lockfileToPackageRegistry() at lockfile/to-pnp/src/index.ts:105-110 uses the same unvalidated dp.parse().name in packageLocation construction, allowing the .pnp.cjs resolver map to point outside the virtual store. This is a lower-impact variant (PnP is not the default linker).

Impact

An attacker who can commit a crafted pnpm-lock.yaml to a repository (or supply one via a malicious package) can cause arbitrary file writes on the machine of any user who runs pnpm install. Written content is the actual package files from a real npm package (attacker controls which package and which destination).

Targets for arbitrary file write include:

  • .git/hooks/pre-commit — code execution on next git operation
  • ~/.local/bin/ — binary hijacking
  • Project source files — supply chain injection

Reproduction

Craft a pnpm-lock.yaml:

lockfileVersion: '9.0'
packages:
  ../../../../../../../tmp/pwned@1.0.0:
    resolution: {integrity: sha512-<real-package-integrity>}
    engines: {node: '>=14'}
snapshots:
  ../../../../../../../tmp/pwned@1.0.0: {}
importers:
  .:
    dependencies:
      legitimate-name:
        specifier: ^1.0.0
        version: ../../../../../../../tmp/pwned@1.0.0

Run pnpm install — package content is written to /tmp/pwned/ instead of the virtual store.

Recommended Fix

Apply safeJoinModulesDir (or equivalent validation) at:

  • lockfileToDepGraph.ts:233 — path.join(modules, pkgName)
  • after-install/src/index.ts:402 — path.join(pkgModulesDir(depPath), pkgInfo.name)
  • lockfile/to-pnp/src/index.ts:105-110 — PnP packageLocation

Alternatively, validate depPath keys during lockfile parsing to reject any that don't produce valid npm package names via dp.parse().

Relationship to GHSA-fr4h-3cph-29xv

GHSA-fr4h-3cph-29xv fixed the hoisted linker path (lockfileToHoistedDepGraph.ts:222) by adding safeJoinModulesDir. The same fix was NOT applied to the virtual store linker, which uses the identical dp.parse().name → path.join() pattern at lockfileToDepGraph.ts:233.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
pnpm
< 10.34.5
10.34.5
pnpm
>= 11.0.0, < 11.11.0
11.11.0

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.

pnpm npm → 10.34.5

npm
npm install pnpm@10.34.5
yarn
yarn add pnpm@10.34.5
pnpm
pnpm add pnpm@10.34.5

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.1

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

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

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-vx52-2968-3vc6
pnpm: Environment secrets exfiltrated via env-placeholder expansion in proxy settings read from an untrusted pnpm-workspace.yaml
High Also affects pnpm
GHSA-2rx9-3g3h-c2jv
pnpm: pacquet trust-lockfile install can create dependency symlinks outside the project
High Also affects pnpm
GHSA-vq4v-j7r6-jq4m
pnpm: A tarball dependency's manifest `name` escapes node_modules → arbitrary file write/overwrite on install
High Also affects pnpm
GHSA-qrv3-253h-g69c
pnpm: Path traversal in configDependencies env lockfile allows symlink creation outside node_modules/.pnpm-config
High Also affects pnpm
GHSA-72r4-9c5j-mj57
pnpm: `patch-remove` could delete project-selected files outside the patches directory
High Also affects pnpm
GHSA-fr4h-3cph-29xv
pnpm: Hoisted install imports lockfile alias outside node_modules
High Also affects pnpm
GHSA-v23m-ccfg-pq9h
pnpm: `stage download` writes outside its destination directory via manifest name/version traversal
High Also affects pnpm
GHSA-4gxm-v5v7-fqc4
pnpm: Reserved bin name deletes PNPM_HOME during global remove
Medium Also affects pnpm
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