How severe is GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm?

No CVSS score has been assigned to GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm yet. Review the advisory details and affected package list to assess your exposure.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm?

GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm affects the following packages: @hulumi/policies (npm). Ecosystems affected: npm.

How do I fix GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm?

Update @hulumi/policies to 1.4.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm in my npm dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for @hulumi/policies, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

How do I mitigate GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

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.

Is GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm yet. This does not mean the vulnerability cannot be exploited — absence of public exploits does not imply safety. Apply the recommended fix and use O3 Security to monitor your exposure.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm?

GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.5%, placing it in the 40th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm?

GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm is classified as CWE-693 (CWE-693). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm was published on June 10, 2026 and was last updated on September 10, 2026. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

📦 npm

Not in CISA KEV

@hulumi/policies bypasses policy packs with a forged Pulumi-URN logical nameGHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm

Fix: kerberosmansour/hulumi#178

GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm is a CWE-693 vulnerability in @hulumi/policies. A fix is available for @hulumi/policies — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Also known asCVE-2026-48033

Published

Jun 10, 2026

Updated

Sep 10, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Oct 23, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.5%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk0.00%

Lower risk than most CVEs40th percentile — riskier than 40% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

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.

0other npm packages depend on this — each one inherits the vulnerability until it's patched upstream

@hulumi/policiesnpm

44downloads / week

Description

Affected: @hulumi/policies < 1.4.0 — Fixed in: 1.4.0 — Severity: High — CWE-693 (Protection Mechanism Failure)

Summary

Pulumi gives every cloud resource a structured URN that includes the resource's type chain (hulumi:baseline:aws:SecureBucket$aws:s3/bucketV2:BucketV2) and the logical name the developer freely chose (anything after the final ::). Several Hulumi policy rules used the URN to grant exemptions — for example, "if this raw bucket is a child of SecureBucket, skip the raw-bucket rule because the parent component handles hardening."

The bug: the rules looked for a substring like hulumi:baseline:aws:SecureBucket$ anywhere in the URN. That substring can also appear in the developer-controlled logical-name portion. A developer (or compromised PR) could simply name a raw resource so its logical name carried the trusted substring, and every rule that used this check would treat the resource as if it were inside the trusted parent and skip its hardening check.

Codex reported this for DEPLOY_GOV_1; the same anti-pattern existed in five more packs (unreported but identically exploitable): AWS H4/H5 sibling lookups, GitHub H1, GitHub H2, Cloudflare CF_DNS_1, Cloudflare CF_DNSSEC_1, and (advisory-level) CIS v5 §2.1.1 + §2.1.5.

Impact

Consumers using @hulumi/policies could ship raw aws:s3:Bucket, github:Repository, cloudflare:Zone, cloudflare:DnsRecord, and similar resources that bypassed mandatory hardening checks by naming themselves with a trusted substring. Every affected rule appeared to pass while the resource had none of the expected defaults.

Patches

Upgrade to @hulumi/[email protected]. A new shared helper at packages/policies/src/urn.ts parses Pulumi URNs structurally and only looks for the trusted parent-type token inside the URN's type-chain segment — never inside the developer-controlled logical name. All six prior call sites have been migrated to it.

Workarounds

None reliable — a local lint that rejects logical names containing $ would catch the trivial form of the spoof but not crafted variants.

Resources

PR #178 (Cluster B); the URN-anchoring refactor and per-pack spoof-vector regression tests in packages/policies/tests/.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
📦npm	`@hulumi/policies`	all versions	1.4.0`npm install @hulumi/policies@1.4.0`

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for @hulumi/policies, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update @hulumi/policies to 1.4.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm 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.

Frequently Asked Questions

**Affected:** `@hulumi/policies` `< 1.4.0` — **Fixed in:** `1.4.0` — **Severity:** High — **CWE-693 (Protection Mechanism Failure)** #### Summary Pulumi gives every cloud resource a structured URN that includes the resource's type chain (`hulumi:baseline:aws:SecureBucket$aws:s3/bucketV2:BucketV2`) and the _logical name_ the developer freely chose (anything after the final `::`). Several Hulumi policy rules used the URN to grant exemptions — for example, "if this raw bucket is a child of `SecureBucket`, skip the raw-bucket rule because the parent component handles hardening." The bug: the ru

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-rhgj-6g2c-frmm in your dependencies?

Find it across npm, including transitive dependencies.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works