GHSA-442j-39wm-28r2
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
In lib/handlebars/runtime.js, the container.lookup() function uses container.lookupProperty() as a gate check to enforce prototype-access controls, but then discards the validated result and performs a second, unguarded property access (depths[i][name]). This Time-of-Check Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) pattern means the security check and the actual read are decoupled, and the raw access bypasses any sanitization that lookupProperty may perform.
Only relevant when the compat compile option is enabled ({compat: true}), which activates depthedLookup in lib/handlebars/compiler/javascript-compiler.js.
Description
The vulnerable code in lib/handlebars/runtime.js (lines 137–144):
lookup: function (depths, name) {
const len = depths.length;
for (let i = 0; i < len; i++) {
let result = depths[i] && container.lookupProperty(depths[i], name);
if (result != null) {
return depths[i][name]; // BUG: should be `return result;`
}
}
},
container.lookupProperty() (lines 119–136) enforces hasOwnProperty checks and resultIsAllowed() prototype-access controls. However, container.lookup() only uses lookupProperty as a boolean gate — if the gate passes (result != null), it then performs an independent, raw depths[i][name] access that circumvents any transformation or wrapped value that lookupProperty may have returned.
Workarounds
- Avoid enabling
{ compat: true }when rendering templates that include untrusted data. - Ensure context data objects are plain JSON (no Proxies, no getter-based accessor properties).
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition
GitHub
2.2
CVSS SCORE
3.7low| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| handlebars | npm | - | - | >=4.0.0,<=4.7.8 | 4.7.9 |
CVSS:3 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control, requiring investing a measurable amount of effort in research, preparation, or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack.
The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.
An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
There is no loss of trust or accuracy within the impacted component.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
Chainguard
CGA-2fhq-v3jc-pvc2
-