pnpm Has Lockfile Integrity Bypass that Allows Remote Dynamic DependenciesGHSA-7vhp-vf5g-r2fw
HIGHFix: pnpm/pnpm@0958027GHSA-7vhp-vf5g-r2fw is a high-severity (CVSS 7.5) CWE-494 vulnerability in pnpm. A fix is available for pnpm — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
- A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-7vhp-vf5g-r2fw.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
How urgent is this, really
Where this sits among everything scored
Real-World Exposure
How broadly this vulnerability is actually deployed: weekly install volume shows current usage, and reverse-dependency count shows how many other packages break if it stays unpatched.
pnpmnpmDescription
Summary
HTTP tarball dependencies (and git-hosted tarballs) are stored in the lockfile without integrity hashes. This allows the remote server to serve different content on each install, even when a lockfile is committed.
Details
When a package depends on an HTTP tarball URL, pnpm's tarball resolver returns only the URL without computing an integrity hash:
resolving/tarball-resolver/src/index.ts:
return {
resolution: {
tarball: resolvedUrl,
// No integrity field
},
resolvedVia: 'url',
}
The resulting lockfile entry has no integrity to verify:
remote-dynamic-dependency@http://example.com/pkg.tgz:
resolution: {tarball: http://example.com/pkg.tgz}
version: 1.0.0
Since there is no integrity hash, pnpm cannot detect when the server returns different content.
This affects:
- HTTP/HTTPS tarball URLs (
"pkg": "https://example.com/pkg.tgz") - Git shorthand dependencies (
"pkg": "github:user/repo") - Git URLs (
"pkg": "git+https://github.com/user/repo")
npm registry packages are not affected as they include integrity hashes from the registry metadata.
PoC
See attached pnpm-bypass-integrity-poc.zip
The POC includes:
- A server that returns different tarball content on each request
- A
malicious-packagethat depends on the HTTP tarball - A
victimproject that depends onmalicious-package
To run:
cd pnpm-bypass-integrity-poc
./run-poc.sh
The output shows that each install (with pnpm store prune between them) downloads different code despite having a committed lockfile.
Impact
An attacker who publishes a package with an HTTP tarball dependency can serve different code to different users or CI/CD environments. This enables:
- Targeted attacks based on request metadata (IP, headers, timing)
- Evasion of security audits (serve benign code during review, malicious code later)
- Supply chain attacks where the malicious payload changes over time
The attack requires the victim to install a package that has an HTTP/git tarball in its dependency tree. The victim's lockfile provides no protection.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📦npm | pnpm | all versions | 10.26.0npm install pnpm@10.26.0 |
Affected Products
pnpmpnpmDetection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for pnpm, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update pnpm to 10.26.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-7vhp-vf5g-r2fw is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
Fixing This On Your OS
If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base or stability.Source: Red Hat security advisory for GHSA-7vhp-vf5g-r2fw (CC BY 4.0)
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-7vhp-vf5g-r2fw in your dependencies?
Find it across npm, including transitive dependencies.