VulnerabilityPublished 13 Aug 2026Updated 26 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-50021: Pnpm@10 · pnpm Has an Integrity Check Bypass via Missing Lockfile Integrity Field

Affects pnpm@10Source GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium : upgrade to 10.34.1 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 10.34.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within 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 10.34.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewpnpm@10`pkg:brew/pnpm%4010`Other threats	Affected >=10.33.2 <10.34.1	Fixed in 10.34.1

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

Description

## Summary pnpm's tarball extraction worker skips integrity verification when the `integrity` field is absent from the lockfile resolution. If an attacker can both modify `pnpm-lock.yaml` to remove the `integrity:` field and cause the referenced registry URL to serve altered package content, `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` can install the altered package without an integrity error. npm's `npm ci` enforces integrity by default; pnpm's behavior of silently skipping verification is a pnpm-specific fail-open gap. ## Vulnerability Details The `addTarballToStore` function in `worker/src/start.ts` (lines 189-204) checks `if (integrity)` before verifying the tarball hash. The `TarballResolution` type declares `integrity` as optional (`integrity?: string`). When the lockfile omits the `integrity` field, the guard evaluates to `false`, skipping hash verification entirely. The worker then computes a new hash from the unverified content and stores it as legitimate. ```typescript // worker/src/start.ts:189-204 function addTarballToStore ({ buffer, storeDir, integrity, ... }: TarballExtractMessage) { if (integrity) { // false when integrity is undefined const { algorithm, hexDigest } = parseIntegrity(integrity) const calculatedHash = crypto.hash(algorithm, buffer, 'hex') if (calculatedHash !== hexDigest) { return { status: 'error', error: { type: 'integrity_validation_failed', ... } } } } return { status: 'success', value: { integrity: integrity ?? calcIntegrity(buffer) }, } } ``` ## Proof of Concept ```bash bash autofyn_audit/exploits/vuln1_integrity_bypass/exploit.sh # Publishes a package, generates lockfile, republishes tampered version, # strips integrity field, re-runs install --frozen-lockfile. # Result: PASS -- tampered package installed without integrity error. ``` ## Impact Supply chain compromise in environments where an attacker can both alter the lockfile and cause the referenced registry URL to serve altered package content. The `--frozen-lockfile` flag does not fail closed when the integrity field is missing. ## Suggested Remediation Require an `integrity` field for remote tarball resolutions. Change the `if (integrity)` guard to fail when integrity is absent for non-local packages. When `--frozen-lockfile` is active, reject lockfile entries that lack integrity for remote packages. --- > Discovered by [AutoFyn](https://github.com/SignalPilot-Labs/AutoFyn) > Full audit report: [audit_report.md](https://github.com/tempcollab/pnpm/blob/main/autofyn_audit/audit_report.md) > Exploit script: [exploit.sh](https://github.com/tempcollab/pnpm/blob/main/autofyn_audit/exploits/vuln1_integrity_bypass/exploit.sh)

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…