GHSA-r28c-9q8g-f849
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Vulnerability Details
File: lib/previous-map.js
Line: 87-98 (loadFile), 129-144 (loadMap)
Root Cause
PostCSS auto-detects a /*# sourceMappingURL=... */ comment inside the CSS text it is asked to parse and, unless the caller explicitly passes map: false, attempts to load that path from disk as a "previous source map." This happens on every postcss.parse() / postcss().process() call by default (opt-out, not opt-in).
loadMap() builds the candidate path via join(dirname(opts.from), annotation), where annotation is the raw, attacker-controlled string from the CSS comment. path.join() normalizes but does not sandbox .. segments, so a ../../../ prefix walks the resolved path outside the intended directory. If opts.from is not set at all, the annotation is used completely unmodified — an absolute path in the CSS comment is read verbatim.
8.5.12 already fixed a strictly worse variant of this (any file, any extension, could be read) by requiring the resolved path to end in .map (loadFile()). That fix did not address the traversal itself, only the target extension. Since the join(dirname(file), map) logic has existed unchanged since PostCSS 8.0.0 (Feb 2020), any file ending in .map remains readable through this path in the current release (8.5.16).
Once loaded, MapGenerator.isMap() treats the mere presence of a loaded "previous map" as an implicit request to generate result.map, even when the caller never set the map option. If the loaded map has a sourcesContent field (common for maps emitted by bundlers/transpilers), that content is merged into result.map and returned to the caller — disclosing the traversed-to file's content to whoever supplied the CSS.
Attack Scenario
- A service accepts user-submitted CSS and runs it through PostCSS to lint/format/transform it, e.g.
postcss().process(userCss, { from: '/app/uploads/user123/input.css', to: '/app/uploads/user123/output.css' })— idiomatic usage;mapoption untouched. - Attacker submits CSS containing
/*# sourceMappingURL=../../../../some/other/app/dist/bundle.js.map */(or an absolute path iffromis unset). - PostCSS reads that
.mapfile and folds itssourcesContentintoresult.map. - The service does what most build pipelines do with a truthy
result.map— writes it next to the CSS output or returns it via API (source maps are meant to be consumed by browser devtools, so this is commonly public/served). - Attacker retrieves the emitted map and reads out the traversed file's content.
Impact
Disclosure of the contents of arbitrary .map files reachable via path traversal (or absolute path when from is unset) from the process's filesystem. Affects any application processing CSS it does not fully trust without explicitly passing map: false. No authentication or user interaction beyond submitting CSS text is required.
Vulnerable Code
loadFile(path, cssFile, trusted) {
if (!trusted && !this.unsafeMap) {
if (!/\.map$/i.test(path)) {
return undefined
}
}
this.root = dirname(path)
if (existsSync(path)) {
this.mapFile = path
return readFileSync(path, 'utf-8').toString().trim()
}
}
loadMap(file, prev) {
...
} else if (this.annotation) {
let map = this.annotation
if (file) map = join(dirname(file), map)
let unknown = this.loadFile(map, file, false)
...
}
}
Recommended Fix
Constrain the resolved path to remain inside the CSS file's own directory instead of relying solely on a filename-extension check:
loadFile(path, cssFile, trusted) {
if (!trusted && !this.unsafeMap) {
if (!/\.map$/i.test(path)) {
return undefined
}
if (!cssFile) return undefined
let root = resolve(dirname(cssFile))
let resolvedPath = resolve(root, path)
if (resolvedPath !== root && !resolvedPath.startsWith(root + sep)) {
return undefined
}
}
this.root = dirname(path)
if (existsSync(path)) {
this.mapFile = path
return readFileSync(path, 'utf-8').toString().trim()
}
}
I've implemented, tested (full existing test suite — 660/660 passing, plus new PoC-based regression checks for both the traversal and legitimate same-directory cases), and can share this fix on request or via a private fork if invited.
Verification
Dynamically confirmed on v8.5.16 (current npm release / repo HEAD) via a standalone Node.js harness against lib/postcss.js: a "secret" .map file placed two directories outside a simulated project directory was read via a crafted sourceMappingURL comment in otherwise-innocuous CSS, with its sourcesContent appearing verbatim in result.map.toString() — with no map option set by the caller. A second harness confirmed the simpler no-from case reads an absolute path directly. A third harness confirmed map: false is the only current workaround. The attached fix branch closes both vectors while keeping all 660 existing unit tests green.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
GitHub
3.9
CVSS SCORE
7.5high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| postcss | npm | - | - | <=8.5.17 | 8.5.18 |
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).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
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 a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
There is no loss of trust or accuracy within the impacted component.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.