CVE-2025-48934VulnerabilityPublished 4 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-48934: denoland deno · Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data

Affects denoland denoSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium : upgrade to 2.1.13 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.1.13

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: 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.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 Jun 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 2026-10-25.

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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC 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 denoland/deno to 2.1.13.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubdenoland/deno`pkg:github/denoland/deno`Other threats	Affected <2.1.13	Fixed in 2.1.13

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade all Deno runtime instances to versions 2.1.13 or 2.2.13 and later, where the vulnerability is patched. Beyond patching, developers should avoid relying solely on the `--deny-env` flag for protecting sensitive environment variables. Instead, implement defense-in-depth by: 1) Minimizing the use of environment variables for secrets; prefer dedicated secret management solutions (e.g., HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager) with strict access controls. 2) Restricting code execution contexts to trusted code only, preventing untrusted or third-party code from running within the same Deno environment. 3) Conducting thorough code reviews and static analysis to detect potential misuse of `Deno.env.toObject()` or other environment variable access patterns. 4) Employing runtime monitoring and anomaly detection to identify unexpected access to environment variables. 5) Educating developers about the limitations of `--deny-env` and encouraging explicit secret handling practices. Finally, organizations should audit existing deployments to identify any exposure of sensitive environment variables and rotate any secrets that may have been compromised prior to patching.

Description

Deno is a JavaScript, TypeScript, and WebAssembly runtime. Prior to versions 2.1.13 and 2.2.13, the `Deno.env.toObject` method ignores any variables listed in the `--deny-env` option of the `deno run` command. When looking at the documentation of the `--deny-env` option this might lead to a false impression that variables listed in the option are impossible to read. Software relying on the combination of both flags to allow access to most environment variables except a few sensitive ones will be vulnerable to malicious code trying to steal secrets using the `Deno.env.toObject()` method. Versions 2.1.13 and 2.2.13 contains a patch.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to applications and services built on the Deno runtime that rely on environment variables to store sensitive configuration data. Exposure of environment variables can lead to leakage of secrets such as database credentials, API keys, or cryptographic tokens, potentially enabling further unauthorized access or data breaches. Given the increasing adoption of Deno in modern web and serverless applications, especially among startups and development teams favoring TypeScript, the risk is non-negligible. Organizations in sectors handling sensitive personal data (e.g., finance, healthcare, telecommunications) could face regulatory repercussions under GDPR if secret leakage leads to data breaches. Additionally, compromised secrets could facilitate lateral movement within corporate networks or cloud environments, escalating the severity of attacks. The medium severity rating suggests that while the vulnerability is not trivially exploitable at scale, targeted attacks against vulnerable Deno deployments could have significant consequences. Since exploitation requires code execution within the Deno environment, the threat is higher in scenarios where untrusted code execution is possible, such as multi-tenant platforms, CI/CD pipelines, or serverless functions.

CWE-201Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The code transmits data to another actor, but a portion of the data includes sensitive information that should not be accessible to that actor.
Requirements
Specify which data in the software should be regarded as sensitive. Consider which types of users should have access to which types of data.
Implementation
Ensure that any possibly sensitive data specified in the requirements is verified with designers to ensure that it is either a calculated risk or mitigated elsewhere.
System Configuration
Setup default error messages so that unexpected errors do not disclose sensitive information.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured SSL/TLS (opens in a new tab)
WiFi MAC Address Tracking (opens in a new tab)
WiFi SSID Tracking (opens in a new tab)
Cellular Broadcast Message Request (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

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 02:28 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-201

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats