VulnerabilityPublished 13 Aug 2026Updated 26 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-59194: pnpm · `patch-remove` could delete project-selected files outside the patches directory

Affects pnpm@10Source GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 10.34.5 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 10.34.5

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

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

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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 Aug 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 pnpm@10 to 10.34.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewpnpm@10`pkg:brew/pnpm%4010`Other threats	Affected >=10.33.2 <10.34.5	Fixed in 10.34.5

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

Description

## Summary The `patch-remove` deletion-scope issue tracked as GHSA-72r4-9c5j-mj57 / CAND-PNPM-030 has been addressed in pnpm. A crafted patch entry could resolve outside the configured patches directory and cause `pnpm patch-remove` to delete an arbitrary reachable file. This patch validates the configured directory and every resolved target before unlinking anything, then deletes the final directory entry without following it. ## Security boundary - Traversal and absolute paths that resolve outside the configured patches directory are rejected before deletion. - Parent directories are canonicalized before deletion, including the case where a nested symlink points outside and the final outside entry is itself dangling. - The complete batch is validated before any file is removed. - Component-aware predicates accept valid names beginning with `..` while still rejecting parent traversal, Windows drive escapes, and UNC escapes. - Valid files and symlinked patch directories whose canonical targets remain below the lockfile directory continue to work. - A final symlink inside a valid patch directory is unlinked without following its target, including when the target is outside or dangling. ## Exploit replay Before the patch, a workspace `patchedDependencies` path that resolved outside the project caused `pnpm patch-remove` to delete the external sentinel. A second replay used a nested parent symlink and a dangling outside victim: `realpath()` returned `ENOENT`, yet the victim was still removed. With this patch, both paths are rejected and the outside entries remain intact. ## Files changed - `patching/commands/src/isSubdirectory.ts` performs component-aware containment checks. - `patching/commands/src/patchRemove.ts` validates the full batch, canonicalizes parents, and unlinks final entries without following them. - `patching/commands/test/{isSubdirectory,patchRemove}.test.ts` covers traversal, nested symlinks, dangling victims, and valid removals. ## Commands run ```text $ pnpm --filter @pnpm/patching.commands test test/isSubdirectory.test.ts test/patchRemove.test.ts PASS: 11 tests across 2 suites $ pnpm --filter @pnpm/patching.commands run compile PASS $ git diff --check PASS ``` ## Validation - Focused handler and path-predicate suites: 11 passed across 2 suites. - Package-wide ESLint: passed. - Package TypeScript build: passed. - Commit hooks, Commitlint, and `git diff --check`: passed. - The broader integration harness was environment-blocked because it writes outside the available temporary root; focused handler tests used `/private/tmp`. ## Patches `10.34.4`: https://github.com/pnpm/pnpm/commit/352ae489f1b14ffdc19d2c6eacb1b06b098c2ddc `11.7.0`: https://github.com/pnpm/pnpm/commit/612a2e6a7333f2b061f452a21b6e62c1c161747f ## Compatibility Missing patch files remain no-ops. Valid symlinked patch directories continue to work when their canonical target stays inside the lockfile directory, and final symlinks are removed without touching their targets. `patch-remove` is not yet in pacquet's command surface, so no Rust-side parity change is required. ## Remaining risk Portable Node APIs do not expose directory-fd-relative `unlinkat()`. A local attacker who can replace an already validated parent directory before the unlink may still win a time-of-check/time-of-use race. The reproduced repository-controlled traversal and symlink paths do not require that concurrent capability and are blocked by this patch. --- Written by an agent (Codex, GPT-5).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…