Skip to content

GHSA-f6gv-hh8j-q8vq CVE-2023-50710

Named path parameters can be overridden in TrieRouter

Medium npm
Severity
4.2 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.64%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 50.60% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix
3.11.7
Upgrade hono to this version or later

Description

Impact

The clients may override named path parameter values from previous requests if the application is using TrieRouter. So, there is a risk that a privileged user may use unintended parameters when deleting REST API resources.

TrieRouter is used either explicitly or when the application matches a pattern that is not supported by the default RegExpRouter.

The code to reproduce it. The server side application:

import { Hono } from 'hono'
import { TrieRouter } from 'hono/router/trie-router'

const wait = async (ms: number) => {
  return new Promise((resolve) => {
    setTimeout(resolve, ms)
  })
}

const app = new Hono({ router: new TrieRouter() })

app.use('*', async (c, next) => {
  await wait(Math.random() * 200)
  return next()
})

app.get('/modules/:id/versions/:version', async (c) => {
  const id = c.req.param('id')
  const version = c.req.param('version')

  console.log('path', c.req.path)
  console.log('version', version)

  return c.json({
    id,
    version,
  })
})

export default app

The client code which makes requests to the server application:

const examples = [
  'http://localhost:8787/modules/first/versions/first',
  'http://localhost:8787/modules/second/versions/second',
  'http://localhost:8787/modules/third/versions/third',
]

const test = () => {
  for (const example of examples) {
    fetch(example)
      .then((response) => response.json())
      .then((data) => {
        const splitted = example.split('/')
        const expected = splitted[splitted.length - 1]

        if (expected !== data.version) {
          console.error(`Error: exprected ${expected} but got ${data.version} - url was ${example}`)
        }
      })
  }
}

test()

The results:

Error: exprected second but got third - url was http://localhost:8787/modules/second/versions/second
Error: exprected first but got third - url was http://localhost:8787/modules/first/versions/first

Patches

"v3.11.7" includes the change to fix this issue.

Workarounds

Don't use TrieRouter directly.

// DON'T USE TrieRouter
import { TrieRouter } from 'hono/router/trie-router'
const app = new Hono({ router: new TrieRouter() })

References

Router options on the Hono website: https://hono.dev/api/hono#router-option

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
hono
< 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.

hono npm → 3.11.7

npm
npm install hono@3.11.7
yarn
yarn add hono@3.11.7
pnpm
pnpm add hono@3.11.7

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.2

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

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

Weakness

CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
  • Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • 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. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
  • Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-5r4p-p66f-jhc7
Hono: `serveStatic` decodes the request path a second time, leading to bypass of middleware on static paths
Medium Also affects hono
GHSA-hxh3-vqpv-xpqv
hono/jsx renders plain strings unescaped in boundary components, leading to XSS
Low Also affects hono
GHSA-gqvv-2mrq-wpjv
Hono: Incomplete fix for CVE-2026-39408: `toSSG()` still writes files outside the output directory
Medium Also affects hono
GHSA-g6gw-c38x-mqfc
Hono: Unbounded dot-notation nesting in `parseBody()` can cause memory exhaustion
Medium Also affects hono
GHSA-crvj-82cr-hjcx
Hono: Query parser reads parameters after the URL fragment, causing cache-key and proxy interpretation differentials
Medium Also affects hono
GHSA-f23p-vx2j-j53r
Hono: `memo()` retains SSR output across requests, leading to cross-user data disclosure
Medium Also affects hono
GHSA-79qm-7rj5-m7r9
Hono: Proxy Helper does not remove response headers listed in the `Connection` header
Low Also affects hono
GHSA-54fx-42gc-7vw4
Hono: Algorithmic Complexity DoS in Language Middleware
Medium Also affects hono
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