CVE-2026-104849
Description
A flaw was found in tinypool. When processing tasks with caller-supplied configuration options, the worker pool does not verify whether properties, such as the worker filename, belong directly to the provided object. An attacker who can manipulate shared JavaScript base objects (prototype pollution) can trick the worker pool into loading and executing a malicious script file. Successful exploitation can lead to arbitrary code execution and unauthorized modification or exposure of application task data.
Statement
This vulnerability is rated as Critical for Red Hat products because an exploit can allow arbitrary code execution within the host Node.js application process with high privileges and complete compromise of worker thread integrity. Exploitation serves as an execution gadget where inherited global object properties override worker script paths when worker jobs are dispatched. Realization of this risk requires both an existing upstream prototype pollution vulnerability elsewhere in the environment and application code that passes caller-supplied configuration dictionaries to worker execution calls.
Mitigation
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
The following CVSS metrics and score provided are preliminary and subject to review.
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 8.1 | N/A | N/A |
| Attack Vector | Network | N/A | N/A |
| Attack Complexity | High | N/A | N/A |
| Privileges Required | None | N/A | N/A |
| User Interaction | None | N/A | N/A |
| Scope | Unchanged | N/A | N/A |
| Confidentiality | High | N/A | N/A |
| Integrity Impact | High | N/A | N/A |
| Availability Impact | High | N/A | N/A |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Access Control
Technical Impact: Bypass Protection Mechanism
In some cases, injectable code controls authentication; this may lead to a remote vulnerability.
Access Control
Technical Impact: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
Injected code can access resources that the attacker is directly prevented from accessing.
Integrity,Confidentiality,Availability
Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
When a product allows a user's input to contain code syntax, it might be possible for an attacker to craft the code in such a way that it will alter the intended control flow of the product. As a result, code injection can often result in the execution of arbitrary code. Code injection attacks can also lead to loss of data integrity in nearly all cases, since the control-plane data injected is always incidental to data recall or writing.
Non-Repudiation
Technical Impact: Hide Activities
Often the actions performed by injected control code are unlogged.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
