Skip to content

GHSA-m2gf-x3f6-8hq3 CVE-2025-61787

Deno is Vulnerable to Command Injection on Windows During Batch File Execution

High crates.io
Severity
8.1 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
2.08%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 81.56% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
Fix
2.5.2
Upgrade deno to this version or later

Description

Summary

Deno versions up to 2.5.1 are vulnerable to Command Line Injection attacks on Windows when batch files are executed.

Details

In Windows, CreateProcess() always implicitly spawns cmd.exe if a batch file (.bat, .cmd, etc.) is being executed even if the application does not specify it via the command line. This makes Deno vulnerable to a command injection attack on Windows as demonstrated by the two proves-of-concept below.

PoC

Using node:child_process (with the env and run permissions):

const { spawn } = require('node:child_process');
const child = spawn('./test.bat', ['&calc.exe']);

Using Deno.Command.spawn() (with the run permission):

const command = new Deno.Command('./test.bat', {
  args: ['&calc.exe'],
});
const child = command.spawn();

Impact

Both of these scripts result in opening calc.exe on Windows, thus allowing a Command Line Injection attack when user-provided arguments are passed if the script being executed by the child process is a batch script.

Affected versions

crates.io

PackageVulnerableFixed in
deno
< 2.5.2
2.5.2

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.

deno crates.io → 2.5.2

cargo
cargo update -p deno --precise 2.5.2

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.1

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

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

Weakness

CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended 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.
  • Implementation: If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
  • 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.
  • Operation: Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
  • System Configuration: Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-x2qc-cmh9-f4hf
Deno: Denial of service via non-ASCII bytes in WebSocket response headers
Medium Also affects deno
GHSA-8xpq-cjcf-3wh9
Deno: Permission Bypass via Unicode Normalization Mismatch on macOS (APFS)
High Also affects deno
GHSA-968w-xfqw-vp9q
Deno: BYONM module resolution allows `package.json` main path traversal to bypass `--allow-read` restrictions
Medium Also affects deno
GHSA-v8fw-85r8-5m23
Deno: Node TCPWrap numeric hostname aliases bypass --deny-net resolved-IP deny checks
Medium Also affects deno
GHSA-9xg4-qhm4-g43w
Deno: Miller-Rabin Primality Test Allows Zero Rounds
High Also affects deno
GHSA-7xh3-mhg9-jcw8
Deno: Command Injection via spawnSync & spawn on Windows
High Also affects deno
GHSA-4c8g-jvcx-v4hv
Deno: process.loadEnvFile() bypasses env permission checks and mutates process.env with only read access
Medium Also affects deno
GHSA-83pc-3rw9-qpwj
Deno: WebSocket API sandbox bypass via missing post-DNS check
Medium Also affects deno
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