VulnerabilityPublished 19 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-64757: Astro Development Server has Arbitrary Local File Read

Affects astroSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2025-64757· Low 3.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.5 Low : upgrade to 5.14.3 when convenient.

Data as of 13 Nov 2026, 18:29 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.5Low

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	3.5

Patch: Available – fixed in 5.14.3

CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Adjacent: 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).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: 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.
Confidentiality: Low: 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.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 Nov 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 13 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade astro to 5.14.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npmastro	Affected <5.14.3	Fixed in 5.14.3

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

### Summary A vulnerability has been identified in the Astro framework's development server that allows arbitrary local file read access through the image optimization endpoint. The vulnerability affects Astro development environments and allows remote attackers to read any image file accessible to the Node.js process on the host system. ### Details - **Title**: Arbitrary Local File Read in Astro Development Image Endpoint - **Type**: CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') - **Component**: `/packages/astro/src/assets/endpoint/node.ts` - **Affected Versions**: Astro v5.x development builds (confirmed v5.13.3) - **Attack Vector**: Network (HTTP GET request) - **Authentication Required**: None The vulnerability exists in the Node.js image endpoint handler used during development mode. The endpoint accepts an `href` parameter that specifies the path to an image file. In development mode, this parameter is processed without adequate path validation, allowing attackers to specify absolute file paths. **Vulnerable Code Location**: `packages/astro/src/assets/endpoint/node.ts` ```typescript // Vulnerable code in development mode if (import.meta.env.DEV) { fileUrl = pathToFileURL(removeQueryString(replaceFileSystemReferences(src))); } else { // Production has proper path validation // ... security checks omitted in dev mode } ``` The development branch bypasses the security checks that exist in the production code path, which validates that file paths are within the allowed assets directory. ### PoC #### Attack Prerequisites 1. Astro development server must be running (`astro dev`) 2. The `/_image` endpoint must be accessible to the attacker 3. Target image files must be readable by the Node.js process #### Exploit Steps 1. Start Astro Development Server: ```bash astro dev # Typically runs on http://localhost:4321 ``` 2. Craft Malicious Request: ```http GET /_image?href=/[ABSOLUTE_PATH_TO_IMAGE]&w=100&h=100&f=png HTTP/1.1 Host: localhost:4321 ``` 3. Example Attack: ```bash curl "http://localhost:4321/_image?href=/%2FSystem%2FLibrary%2FImage%20Capture%2FAutomatic%20Tasks%2FMakePDF.app%2FContents%2FResources%2F0blank.jpg&w=100&h=100&f=png" -o stolen.png ``` #### Demonstration Results **Test Environment**: macOS with Astro v5.13.3 **Successful Exploitation**: - Target: `/System/Library/Image Capture/Automatic Tasks/MakePDF.app/Contents/Resources/0blank.jpg` - Response: HTTP 200 OK, Content-Type: image/png - Exfiltration: 303 bytes (100x100 PNG) - File Created: `stolen-image.png` containing processed system image **Attack Payload**: ``` http://localhost:4321/_image?href=/%2FSystem%2FLibrary%2FImage%20Capture%2FAutomatic%20Tasks%2FMakePDF.app%2FContents%2FResources%2F0blank.jpg&w=100&h=100&f=png ``` **Server Response**: ``` Status: 200 OK Content-Type: image/png Content-Length: 303 ``` ### Impact #### Confidentiality Impact: HIGH - **Scope**: Any image file readable by the Node.js process - **Exfiltration Method**: Complete file contents via HTTP response (transformed to PNG) #### Integrity Impact: NONE - The vulnerability only allows reading files, not modification #### Availability Impact: NONE - No direct impact on system availability - Potential for resource exhaustion through repeated large image requests ### Affected Components #### Primary Component - **File**: `packages/astro/src/assets/endpoint/node.ts` - **Function**: `loadLocalImage()` - **Lines**: Development mode branch (~25-35) #### Secondary Components - **File**: `packages/astro/src/assets/endpoint/generic.ts` - **Impact**: Uses different code path, not directly vulnerable - **Note**: Implements proper remote allowlist validation

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-23Relative Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize sequences such as ".." that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
Operation · Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Relative Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-22, CWE-23

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats