Skip to content

GHSA-pfhg-q3qv-9q6r CVE-2026-114060

SvelteKit: URL redirection to untrusted site via enhanced form submission

Medium npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.20%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 10.11% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-601 URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')
Fix
3.0.0
Upgrade @sveltejs/kit to this version or later

Description

Impact

Applications using enhanced form actions (use:enhance) on routes that accept paths beginning with //, such as catch-all routes, may be vulnerable to an open redirect.

Patches

A fix has been prepared for @sveltejs/kit 3.0.0. Users should upgrade to 3.0.0 or later.

The fix preserves leading double slashes in action paths without generating protocol-relative URLs, restricts non-redirect action navigation to the current origin, and includes the origin when comparing action locations with the current page.

Workarounds

Reject requests whose parsed URL pathname begins with // before route resolution, for example in a reverse proxy or a SvelteKit handle hook.

Alternatively, disable navigation for non-redirect enhanced form results by supplying a custom submission callback:

<form method="POST" use:enhance={() => ({ update }) => update({ navigate: false })}>
  <!-- form fields -->
</form>

This applies non-redirect results to the current page instead of navigating to the action location.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
@sveltejs/kit
< 3.0.0
3.0.0

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.

@sveltejs/kit npm → 3.0.0

npm
npm install @sveltejs/kit@3.0.0
yarn
yarn add @sveltejs/kit@3.0.0
pnpm
pnpm add @sveltejs/kit@3.0.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Active
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
Low
Integrity (subsequent systems)
Low
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 4.7

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

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

Weakness

CWE-601: URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')

The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.

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. Use a list of approved URLs or domains to be used for redirection.
  • Architecture and Design: Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
  • 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 "/login.asp" and ID 2 could map to "http://www.example.com/". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-45] provide this capability.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that no externally-supplied requests are honored by requiring that all redirect requests include a unique nonce generated by the application [REF-483]. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
  • 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 open redirect problems occur because the programmer assumed that certain inputs could not be modified, such as cookies and hidden form fields.
  • 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-27mw-82g8-phjj
SvelteKit : XSS via untrusted cache-control header in prerendered page
Low Also affects @sveltejs/kit
GHSA-29g2-3rmr-qm68
SvelteKit: ReDoS (O(n^2)) in content negotiation — unauthenticated DoS via the Accept header
Medium Also affects @sveltejs/kit
GHSA-866w-xmhq-wj7x
SvelteKit: Prototype pollution in file input deletion path in remote-function forms
Medium Also affects @sveltejs/kit
GHSA-wqjv-9729-c5q2
SvelteKit: Big remote form function payloads can cause Node process to crash
Medium Also affects @sveltejs/kit
GHSA-hgv7-v322-mmgr
@sveltejs/kit: `query.batch` cross-talk
Medium Also affects @sveltejs/kit
GHSA-3f6h-2hrp-w5wx
@sveltejs/kit: Unvalidated redirect in handle hook causes Denial-of-Service
High Also affects @sveltejs/kit
GHSA-2crg-3p73-43xp
@sveltejs/adapter-node has a BODY_SIZE_LIMIT bypass
High Also affects @sveltejs/kit
GHSA-fpg4-jhqr-589c
SvelteKit has deserialization expansion in unvalidated `form` remote function leading to Denial of Service (experimental only)
High Also affects @sveltejs/kit
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