Skip to content

GHSA-gj8w-mvpf-x27x CVE-2026-55697

pnpm: Repository-controlled configDependencies can select a pacquet native install engine

High npm
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.19%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 8.78% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-494 Download of Code Without Integrity Check
CWE-78 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
CWE-829 Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere
Fix
10.34.2
Upgrade pnpm to this version or later

Description

<!-- maintainer-action:start -->

Maintainer Action Plan

This report is ready to review with the shared patch branch. Start with the PR and the expected fixed behavior, then use the detailed exploit narrative below only if you want to replay the original path.

  • Advisory: CAND-PNPM-097 / GHSA-gj8w-mvpf-x27x
  • Advisory URL: https://github.com/pnpm/pnpm/security/advisories/GHSA-gj8w-mvpf-x27x
  • Shared patch PR: https://github.com/pnpm/pnpm-ghsa-j2hc-m6cf-6jm8/pull/1
  • Shared patch branch: security/ghsa-batch-2026-06-09
  • Patch commit: a93449314f398cf4bdf2e28d033c02d37395ad22
  • Base commit: origin/main 55a4035abf1ae3fe7208ba1f5ef43c5eff58ccec
  • Maintainer priority: start-here
  • Component: pnpm configDependencies / pacquet delegation
  • Patch area: pacquet/configDependency lifecycle execution is not used as install engine without trust
  • Affected packages: npm:pnpm, npm:@pnpm/config.reader, npm:@pnpm/installing.commands
  • CWE IDs: CWE-829, CWE-78, CWE-494
  • Conservative CVSS: 7.5 / CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
  • Next action: review the shared patch branch for this component, set the final affected version range, merge and release the fix, then publish or close the advisory.

Expected Patched Behavior

config-dependency pacquet install engines are not selected unless the trusted allowlist is set outside the repository; the marker file is not created.

Files And Tests To Review

  • config/reader/src/Config.ts
  • config/reader/src/types.ts
  • config/reader/src/configFileKey.ts
  • config/reader/src/index.ts
  • config/reader/test/index.ts
  • installing/commands/src/installDeps.ts
  • installing/commands/test/runPacquet.ts
  • pnpm/test/install/pacquet.ts
  • .changeset/lucky-config-plugin-pnpmfiles.md

Focused Validation

Run these from a checkout of the shared patch branch. They are the useful maintainer commands with machine-local artifact paths removed.

./node_modules/.bin/tsgo --build config/reader/tsconfig.json
./node_modules/.bin/tsgo --build installing/commands/tsconfig.json
./node_modules/.bin/tsgo --build pnpm/tsconfig.json
NODE_OPTIONS="--experimental-vm-modules --disable-warning=ExperimentalWarning --disable-warning=DEP0169" ../../node_modules/.bin/jest test/runPacquet.ts --runInBand
NODE_OPTIONS="--experimental-vm-modules --disable-warning=ExperimentalWarning --disable-warning=DEP0169" ../../node_modules/.bin/jest test/index.ts -t "config dependency code allowlists|user-level preference settings" --runInBand
./node_modules/.bin/eslint config/reader/src/Config.ts config/reader/src/types.ts config/reader/src/configFileKey.ts config/reader/src/index.ts config/reader/test/index.ts installing/commands/src/installDeps.ts installing/commands/test/runPacquet.ts pnpm/test/install/pacquet.ts
git diff --check

The full patched replay for the shared branch passed with all 20 candidates marked fixed. This candidate's replay evidence is results/CAND-PNPM-097-patched-result.json.

<!-- maintainer-action:end -->

Summary

pnpm can install configDependencies declared in pnpm-workspace.yaml before command dispatch. Before the patch, a repository could declare pacquet or @pnpm/pacquet as a config dependency and pnpm treated that repository-controlled dependency as an install-engine opt-in. During install, pnpm resolved a platform-specific @pacquet/<platform>-<arch>/pacquet binary from node_modules/.pnpm-config/<packageName> and spawned it as the developer or CI user.

Details

The vulnerable source-to-sink path was:

  • config/reader/src/getOptionsFromRootManifest.ts copies repository pnpm-workspace.yaml configDependencies into config.
  • pnpm/src/getConfig.ts installs config dependencies before command dispatch.
  • installing/env-installer/src/resolveAndInstallConfigDeps.ts resolves the repository-declared dependency and its optional platform subdependencies.
  • installing/env-installer/src/installConfigDeps.ts fetches, imports, and symlinks the config dependency tree under node_modules/.pnpm-config.
  • installing/commands/src/installDeps.ts selected pacquet delegation whenever configDependencies contained pacquet or @pnpm/pacquet.
  • installing/deps-installer/src/install/index.ts called opts.runPacquet from frozen and materialization paths.
  • installing/commands/src/runPacquet.ts resolved @pacquet/${process.platform}-${process.arch}/pacquet from the installed config dependency package and executed it with spawn().

Exact-version, integrity, and platform filters only proved which bytes package resolution selected; they did not establish that the repository was trusted to choose a native install engine.

PoC

Standalone PoC and verification script:

Repository fixture:

packages:
  - .
configDependencies:
  pacquet: 0.2.2

Registry package shape:

{
  "name": "pacquet",
  "version": "0.2.2",
  "optionalDependencies": {
    "@pacquet/darwin-arm64": "0.2.2"
  }
}

Platform package payload:

#!/bin/sh
echo "$PWD" > /tmp/pacquet-engine-ran
env > /tmp/pacquet-engine-env

Pre-patch exploit model:

  1. The victim runs a dependency-management command such as pnpm install in the repository.
  2. pnpm installs the repository-declared config dependency and its host-compatible optional platform dependency into .pnpm-config.
  3. installDeps() treats the presence of configDependencies.pacquet or configDependencies["@pnpm/pacquet"] as authorization to delegate install materialization.
  4. runPacquet() resolves the platform binary from the installed config dependency tree and spawns it in the lockfile directory.

Observed PoC output:

{
  "primitive": "repository-selected pacquet config dependency reaches native process execution when selected",
  "patchedWithoutAllowlist": "blocked",
  "trustedAllowlist": "allows explicit opt-in"
}

Focused validation commands:

./node_modules/.bin/tsgo --build config/reader/tsconfig.json
./node_modules/.bin/tsgo --build installing/commands/tsconfig.json
./node_modules/.bin/tsgo --build pnpm/tsconfig.json
NODE_OPTIONS="--experimental-vm-modules --disable-warning=ExperimentalWarning --disable-warning=DEP0169" ../../node_modules/.bin/jest test/runPacquet.ts --runInBand
NODE_OPTIONS="--experimental-vm-modules --disable-warning=ExperimentalWarning --disable-warning=DEP0169" ../../node_modules/.bin/jest test/index.ts -t "config dependency code allowlists|user-level preference settings" --runInBand
./node_modules/.bin/eslint config/reader/src/Config.ts config/reader/src/types.ts config/reader/src/configFileKey.ts config/reader/src/index.ts config/reader/test/index.ts installing/commands/src/installDeps.ts installing/commands/test/runPacquet.ts pnpm/test/install/pacquet.ts
git diff --check

Validation result:

  • The PoC confirmed a selected pacquet config dependency reaches native process execution.
  • Patched getPacquetConfigDependencyName() returns undefined without a trusted allowlist.
  • Patched getPacquetConfigDependencyName() allows exact pacquet, exact @pnpm/pacquet, and wildcard * trusted opt-in.
  • Config reader regressions prove user/global config can set configDependencyInstallEngineAllowlist, while pnpm-workspace.yaml cannot grant this permission to itself.
  • E2E fixtures that intentionally delegate to pacquet now pass the trusted allowlist through environment config.
  • TypeScript builds passed for @pnpm/config.reader, @pnpm/installing.commands, and pnpm.
  • Focused installing/commands/test/runPacquet.ts: 3 passed.
  • Focused config/reader/test/index.ts: 2 passed, 132 skipped under the focused pattern.
  • ESLint passed with warnings only for existing skipped tests in config/reader/test/index.ts and pnpm/test/install/pacquet.ts.
  • git diff --check: passed.

Impact

A malicious repository can cause pnpm to execute a registry-selected native binary while handling dependency-management commands. The binary runs with the victim developer or CI user's filesystem, environment, registry credentials, git/SSH credentials, and network access.

Affected products

Ecosystem: npm

Package name: pnpm, @pnpm/config.reader, @pnpm/installing.commands

Affected versions: current main before this patch, when configDependencies contains pacquet or @pnpm/pacquet and install paths delegate to pacquet.

Patched versions: 10.34.2, 11.5.3.

Severity

Severity: High

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

Base score: 8.8

Rationale: attacker input is delivered through a repository and registry package, exploitation is low complexity once the victim runs pnpm, no attacker privileges are required, and user interaction is required. Successful exploitation executes a native binary in the victim user's context, with high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact.

Weaknesses

CWE-829: Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere

CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command

CWE-494: Download of Code Without Integrity Check

Patch

The patch adds a trusted opt-in gate for config-dependency install-engine delegation:

  • New setting: configDependencyInstallEngineAllowlist.
  • The allowlist can be set from trusted user-controlled config such as global config, CLI config, or environment config.
  • pnpm-workspace.yaml cannot grant this permission to itself; workspace-provided values are discarded after workspace settings are merged.
  • installDeps() delegates to pacquet only when pacquet, @pnpm/pacquet, or * is present in the trusted allowlist.
  • Repositories can still install pacquet as a config dependency, but pnpm will not spawn it as an install engine unless trusted config opts in.
  • Existing tests that intentionally exercise pacquet delegation were updated to pass the trusted allowlist via environment config.

Changed files:

  • config/reader/src/Config.ts
  • config/reader/src/types.ts
  • config/reader/src/configFileKey.ts
  • config/reader/src/index.ts
  • config/reader/test/index.ts
  • installing/commands/src/installDeps.ts
  • installing/commands/test/runPacquet.ts
  • pnpm/test/install/pacquet.ts

Changeset:

  • .changeset/lucky-config-plugin-pnpmfiles.md

Pacquet parity:

No pacquet-side code-execution sink exists for this finding. The Rust port parses and records configDependencies for workspace-state compatibility, but it does not install config dependencies or select/spawn an alternate install engine from them. The user-visible trust setting is TypeScript-side today because it gates pnpm's pacquet delegation path.

CVSS Reassessment

Initial CVSS remains correct for vulnerable versions: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H / 8.8 High.

Final CVSS after patch: not vulnerable after patch / 0.0. The PoC no longer reaches pacquet install-engine selection or native process execution unless the victim has set a trusted allowlist outside the repository's own workspace settings.

Remaining Risk

Users can explicitly trust pacquet install-engine delegation through the new allowlist. That is intentional behavior; the closed issue is repository self-authorization of a registry-provided native install engine.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
pnpm
< 10.34.2
10.34.2
pnpm
>= 11.0.0, < 11.5.3
11.5.3

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 → 10.34.2

npm
npm install pnpm@10.34.2
yarn
yarn add pnpm@10.34.2
pnpm
pnpm add pnpm@10.34.2

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-494: Download of Code Without Integrity Check

The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Perform proper forward and reverse DNS lookups to detect DNS spoofing.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Encrypt the code with a reliable encryption scheme before transmitting. This will only be a partial solution, since it will not detect DNS spoofing and it will not prevent your code from being modified on the hosting site.
  • 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]. Speficially, it may be helpful to use tools or frameworks to perform integrity checking on the transmitted code. When providing the code that is to be downloaded, such as for automatic updates of the software, then use cryptographic signatures for the code and modify the download clients to verify the signatures. Ensure that the implementation does not contain CWE-295, CWE-320, CWE-347, and related weaknesses. Use code signing technologies such as Authenticode. See references [REF-454] [REF-455] [REF-456].
  • 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, 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.

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-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].

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-c59q-g84q-2gj5
pnpm: Virtual store linker path traversal via unvalidated depPath name in lockfileToDepGraph
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
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