VulnerabilityPublished 20 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-112944: vitejs launch-editor · Argument Injection

Affects vitejs launch-editorSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium : upgrade to 2.14.2 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 53% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.14.2, 8.3.3, 8.2.4 +4

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

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

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: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to 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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 Oct 2026
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 26 Oct 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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 to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
vitejslaunch-editor	Affected <2.14.2	Fixed in 2.14.2
vitejsvite	Affected >=8.3.0 <8.3.3	Fixed in 8.3.3
vitejsvite	Affected >=8.2.0 <8.2.4	Fixed in 8.2.4
vitejsvite	Affected >=8.0.0 <8.1.6	Fixed in 8.1.6
vitejsvite	Affected >=7.0.0 <7.3.7	Fixed in 7.3.7
vitejsvite	Affected <6.4.4	Fixed in 6.4.4

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

AI-suggested

This vulnerability is fixed in vitejs launch-editor version 2.14.2. Users should upgrade to version 2.14.2 or later to remediate this issue. No additional mitigation steps are indicated by the vendor advisory.

Description

### Summary `launch-editor` forwarded file paths directly to editors without sanitization. If a path resembles a CLI flag, editors like Vim may interpret it as a command, potentially causing unintended file overwrites or command execution. ### Impact #### Direct `launch-editor` users Only apps that match all of the following conditions are affected: - The attacker is able to create a file system entry (e.g. a file or directory) starting with `+` or `-` in the working directory - The user uses or the app specifies any of the following editors: - Vim (including gVim) - MacVim - Emacs (including Emacsclient) - Notepad++ (only if using a plugin exposing dangerous operations via plugin messages) - The first argument of `launchEditor` can start with `+` or `-` or the user is using WSL #### `launch-editor-middleware` users Only apps that match the following conditions are affected: - The attacker is able to create a file system entry (e.g. a file or directory) starting with `+` or `-` in the working directory - The user uses or the app specifies any of the following editors: - Vim (including gVim) - MacVim - Emacs (including Emacsclient) - Notepad++ (only if using a plugin exposing dangerous operations via plugin messages) - launch-editor older than v2.2.0 is used, or the user is using WSL #### Vite users Only apps that match the following conditions are affected: - The attacker is able to create a file system entry (e.g. a file or directory) starting with `+` or `-` in the working directory - The user uses or the app specifies any of the following editors: - Vim (including gVim) - MacVim - Emacs (including Emacsclient) - Notepad++ (only if using a plugin exposing dangerous operations via plugin messages) - The user is using WSL ### Details `launchEditor(file)` function passes the file name as-is to the editor if the file with that file name exists. If the file name starts with `-` (also `+` for Vim), the editor treats them as flags rather than positional arguments. For example, Vim treats arguments starting with `+` as an Ex command. As a result, an existing relative directory such as: ``` +call writefile(["SAFE_MARKER"],"LAUNCH_EDITOR_MARKER")|qa! ``` is not treated as a filename when passed to Vim. Vim executes the embedded Ex command. The following editor has a potentially destructive operation exposed to the CLI arguments: - Vim (including gVim) - MacVim - Emacs (including Emacsclient) - Notepad++ (only if using a plugin exposing dangerous operations via plugin messages) `launch-editor-middleware` v2.2.0+ converts the passed file path to an absolute path so those are not affected as long as the user is not using WSL. For WSL, `launch-editor` converts the paths to relative paths internally, so those are still affected. Vite 2.0.0+ uses `launch-editor-middleware` v2.2.0+ so the WSL users are only affected.

Impact

An attacker able to create specially crafted filesystem entries can exploit this vulnerability to cause unintended file overwrites or execute arbitrary commands within the context of the selected editor. This could lead to code execution or data corruption on the affected system. The vulnerability affects multiple popular editors when invoked via launch-editor, increasing the risk surface.

Summary

The launch-editor component of vitejs allows users to open files with line numbers in editors from Node.js. Versions prior to 2.14.2 are vulnerable when an attacker can create a filesystem entry beginning with '+' or '-' in the working directory. Because launch-editor forwards the path without forcing it to be interpreted strictly as a positional filename, the editor's option parsing treats the attacker-controlled filename as a command-line flag. This can lead to unintended file overwrites or arbitrary command execution in affected editors such as Vim, gVim, MacVim, Emacs, Emacsclient, and Notepad++ (with certain plugins). The vulnerability is mitigated by forcing proper interpretation of the filename in version 2.14.2.

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
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
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter 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 20 Oct 2026, 15:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats