Analysis and contextual insights are available on OpenCVE Cloud.
No vendor fix or workaround currently provided.
Additional remediation guidance may be available on OpenCVE Cloud.
Tracking
Sign in to view the affected projects.
No advisories yet.
Thu, 17 Sep 2026 14:00:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Description | vm2 3.11.6 is vulnerable to a sandbox escape leading to remote code execution in the host Node.js process. The fix for GHSA-m283-3h24-438v is incomplete: the bridge gate at lib/bridge.js:1624 identity-checks only the direct call target when deciding whether to rebuild/sanitise a rejected host Promise value. Registering the rejection handler through Function.prototype.call or .apply indirection (e.g., p.then.call(p, undefined, cb)) makes the intercepted target host Function.prototype.call, so the sanitiser never runs and the raw host error reaches sandbox code with its own properties intact. If an embedder exposes a host-realm Promise to the sandbox (an async host function bridged via the sandbox option, or a NodeVM external module's async method) and that Promise rejects with an Error carrying a non-primitive own property referencing a host object (for example err.detail = process), untrusted code in the sandbox obtains a fully functional proxy to that host object and can execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the host process (e.g., e.detail.mainModule.require('child_process').execSync(...)). The direct p.then(undefined, cb), bind, and Reflect.apply forms are correctly sanitised. Fixed in vm2 3.11.7. | |
| Title | vm2 3.11.6 Remote Code Execution via Promise call/apply | |
| Weaknesses | CWE-94 | |
| References |
| |
| Metrics |
cvssV3_1
|
Subscriptions
No data.
Status: PUBLISHED
Assigner: VulnCheck
Published:
Updated: 2026-09-17T13:46:02.195Z
Reserved: 2026-09-17T12:42:34.828Z
Link: CVE-2026-92937
No data.
Status : Deferred
Published: 2026-09-17T14:17:58.517
Modified: 2026-09-17T14:17:58.690
Link: CVE-2026-92937
No data.
OpenCVE Enrichment
No data.
-
CWE-94
Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')