CVE-2025-65026VulnerabilityPublished 19 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-65026: esm.sh · Code Injection

Affects esm.shSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.1 Medium : upgrade to 136 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 43% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 136

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: 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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: 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 on 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
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 esm-dev/esm.sh to 136.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubesm-dev/esm.sh`pkg:github/esm-dev/esm.sh`Other threats	Affected <136	Fixed in 136

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 esm.sh dependencies to version 136 or later to apply the official patch. They should audit their use of esm.sh CDN, particularly any CSS modules imported with the ?module parameter, to identify and remove potentially malicious or untrusted CSS files. Implementing Content Security Policy (CSP) headers that restrict script execution sources can help mitigate XSS risks. For Electron applications, developers should enforce strict validation and sanitization of all imported modules and consider sandboxing techniques to limit code execution privileges. Monitoring network traffic for unusual requests to esm.sh endpoints and employing runtime application self-protection (RASP) can detect and block exploitation attempts. Additionally, educating developers about the risks of dynamic code generation and template literal injection can prevent similar vulnerabilities. Organizations should also maintain an inventory of third-party dependencies and CDN usage to quickly respond to future vulnerabilities.

Description

esm.sh is a nobuild content delivery network(CDN) for modern web development. Prior to version 136, The esm.sh CDN service contains a Template Literal Injection vulnerability (CWE-94) in its CSS-to-JavaScript module conversion feature. When a CSS file is requested with the ?module query parameter, esm.sh converts it to a JavaScript module by embedding the CSS content directly into a template literal without proper sanitization. An attacker can inject malicious JavaScript code using ${...} expressions within CSS files, which will execute when the module is imported by victim applications. This enables Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in browsers and Remote Code Execution (RCE) in Electron applications. This issue has been patched in version 136.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk primarily to web applications and Electron-based desktop applications that rely on esm.sh CDN for module delivery. Successful exploitation can lead to XSS attacks in browsers, potentially allowing attackers to steal user credentials, session tokens, or perform actions on behalf of users. In Electron apps, the risk escalates to remote code execution, which can compromise the host system, leading to data theft, persistence, or lateral movement within corporate networks. Organizations in sectors with high reliance on modern web development frameworks and Electron apps—such as fintech, software development, and digital services—are particularly vulnerable. The medium severity score indicates that while the vulnerability is exploitable remotely and without privileges, it requires user interaction, somewhat limiting mass exploitation. However, targeted attacks against European enterprises using esm.sh could result in significant confidentiality and integrity breaches, impacting customer trust and regulatory compliance, especially under GDPR. The absence of known exploits in the wild suggests a window for proactive mitigation before widespread attacks occur.

CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #10OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (opens in a new tab)
Code Injection (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 26 Nov 2025, 18:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-94

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats