Skip to content

GHSA-wrj3-vj8c-784f CVE-2026-75858

CodeWhale: rlm_eval auto-approves arbitrary Python execution, bypassing the user's approval policy (RCE)

High crates.ionpm
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.36%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 30.30% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix
Available
3 packages have a fixed version

Description

Maintainer resolution

The CodeWhale maintainers validated this report. The affected package ranges are recorded in the advisory metadata. Version 0.8.64 contains the fix in commit 57f3c89471e27ac4032d9791f6885e5d4408c381. Users should upgrade to 0.8.64 or later. The original reporter analysis is preserved below.

Summary

The rlm_eval tool runs an arbitrary Python string chosen by the model in a real python3 interpreter. Its approval_requirement() returns ApprovalRequirement::Auto, which the engine treats as "never prompt," regardless of the user's configured --approval-policy. A single tool call — which prompt injection from any untrusted content the agent reads (a web page, a fetched URL, a repo file, an MCP tool result) can induce — runs code on the user's machine at the user's privilege with no prompt and no audit step. This is the same defect that was already patched on the sibling run_tests tool (CVE-2026-45311); the fix never reached rlm_eval or rlm_open, which expose a broader surface (full Python on the host, not just cargo test).

Details

rlm_eval's execute() reads the LLM-controlled code field and runs it (crates/tui/src/tools/rlm.rs:215-300):

fn capabilities(&self) -> Vec<ToolCapability> {
    vec![ToolCapability::Network, ToolCapability::ExecutesCode]
}

fn approval_requirement(&self) -> ApprovalRequirement {
    ApprovalRequirement::Auto          // overrides the safe default below
}

async fn execute(&self, input: Value, context: &ToolContext) -> Result<ToolResult, ToolError> {
    let name = required_non_empty_str(&input, "name")?;
    let code = required_non_empty_str(&input, "code")?;   // LLM-controlled
    ...
    let round = kernel.run(code, Some(&bridge)).await...   // runs that code in python3

The trait default at crates/tui/src/tools/spec.rs:632-633 would have returned Required for any tool whose capabilities include ExecutesCode. rlm_eval deliberately overrides that to Auto.

The engine's approval gate (crates/tui/src/core/engine.rs:845) is two AND-ed conditions, and a per-tool Auto makes the first one false:

let approval_required = spec.approval_requirement() != ApprovalRequirement::Auto
    && !registry.context().auto_approve;

When approval_requirement() is Auto, approval_required is false, no Event::ApprovalRequired is emitted, and the user's --approval-policy (on-request, unless-trusted, never) is never consulted. The companion tool rlm_open (rlm.rs:142-143, same Auto, capabilities include ExecutesCode + Network) spawns the same Python kernel via PythonRuntime::spawn_with_context (rlm.rs:181) and can stage a content string, a file_path read, or a url fetch into the kernel before rlm_eval runs against it. Both tools are registered unconditionally by the default registry (crates/tui/src/tools/registry.rs:802-803); there is no flag to disable them.

PoC

Source-level reproduction. Point a provider's base_url at a local mock that returns canned tool_calls, then have the agent call rlm_open followed by rlm_eval with a code payload such as:

import os, getpass, socket
open('/tmp/pwned_by_rlm_eval','w').write(getpass.getuser()+'@'+socket.gethostname()+':'+os.getcwd())

Run it through the non-interactive path (codewhale exec --auto) to confirm the tool executes, and through the plain interactive TUI under --approval-policy on-request (no --auto, no --yolo) to confirm no approval dialog appears. The sentinel file is written either way; the interactive run is the one that proves the policy is bypassed rather than waived.

Impact

Unsandboxed code execution on the user's workstation at the user's UID: read SSH keys, cloud credentials, ~/.codewhale/auth.json, and other secrets; write to shell rc files or authorized_keys for persistence; spawn subprocesses; reach the network. No filesystem, network, or process sandbox is applied to the spawned interpreter. Reachable with user interaction (running the agent over attacker-influenced content), no further prompt.

Credit

sai-sh

Affected versions

crates.io

PackageVulnerableFixed in
codewhale-tui
>= 0.8.41, < 0.8.64
0.8.64
deepseek-tui
>= 0.8.33, <= 0.8.41
No fix yet

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
codewhale
>= 0.8.41, < 0.8.64
0.8.64
deepseek-tui
>= 0.8.33, < 0.8.41
0.8.41

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.

codewhale-tui crates.io → 0.8.64

cargo
cargo update -p codewhale-tui --precise 0.8.64

codewhale npm → 0.8.64

npm
npm install codewhale@0.8.64
yarn
yarn add codewhale@0.8.64
pnpm
pnpm add codewhale@0.8.64

deepseek-tui npm → 0.8.41

npm
npm install deepseek-tui@0.8.41
yarn
yarn add deepseek-tui@0.8.41
pnpm
pnpm add deepseek-tui@0.8.41

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Passive
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 7.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • 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 authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
  • Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • 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. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
  • Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
  • 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: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-h539-c7r8-3xq4
CodeWhale: js_execution leaks parent environment to model context via missing env scrub
High Also affects codewhale
GHSA-w7wx-5q49-r59w
CodeWhale: image_analyze follows workspace symlinks, leaking external file bytes
High Also affects codewhale
GHSA-7j5w-7r7x-9v27
CodeWhale: Argument Injection in `git_show` Tool Allows Arbitrary File Write Without Approval
Critical Also affects codewhale
GHSA-c6mw-8xh8-gpq6
CodeWhale: Argument Injection in `git_blame` Tool Allows Arbitrary File Read Without Approval
High Also affects codewhale
GHSA-gx45-xrj5-g6c4
CodeWhale: Project config `allow_shell` override enables arbitrary shell command execution via cloned repository
High Also affects codewhale
GHSA-62f5-cp2p-vq95
CodeWhale: Project config `instructions` override enables arbitrary file read into AI system prompt via cloned repository
High Also affects codewhale
GHSA-g29h-pfmp-qp9r
CodeWhale: exec_shell_interact sends LLM-controlled input to a running shell without an approval prompt (privilege escalation)
High Also affects codewhale
GHSA-6v2g-fpxh-pmmh
CodeWhale: SSRF‌ bypass - TOCTOU on DNS failure for DNS pinning
High Also affects codewhale
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