CVE-2023-39532: SES's dynamic import and spread operator provides possible path to arbitrary exfiltration and execution
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 39/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 1.3% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 71.5% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to CISA the attack is automatable: targets can be found by mass scanning.
- Fixed version: ses (npm) 0.13.5, 0.14.5, 0.15.24.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to ses (npm) 0.13.5, 0.14.5, 0.15.24 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
SES is a JavaScript environment that allows safe execution of arbitrary programs in Compartments. In version 0.18.0 prior to 0.18.7, 0.17.0 prior to 0.17.1, 0.16.0 prior to 0.16.1, 0.15.0 prior to 0.15.24, 0.14.0 prior to 0.14.5, an 0.13.0 prior to 0.13.5, there is a hole in the confinement of guest applications under SES that may manifest as either the ability to exfiltrate information or execute arbitrary code depending on the configuration and implementation of the surrounding host. Guest program running inside a Compartment with as few as no endowments can gain access to the surrounding host’s dynamic import by using dynamic import after the spread operator, like `{...import(arbitraryModuleSpecifier)}`. On the web or in web extensions, a Content-Security-Policy following ordinary best practices likely mitigates both the risk of exfiltration and execution of arbitrary code, at least limiting the modules that the attacker can import to those that are already part of the application. However, without a Content-Security-Policy, dynamic import can be used to issue HTTP requests for either communication through the URL or for the execution of code reachable from that origin. Within an XS worker, an attacker can use the host’s module system to the extent that the host has been configured. This typically only allows access to module code on the host’s file system and is of limited use to an attacker. Within Node.js, the attacker gains access to Node.js’s module system. Importing the powerful builtins is not useful except insofar as there are side-effects and tempered because dynamic import returns a promise. Spreading a promise into an object renders the promises useless. However, Node.js allows importing data URLs, so this is a clear path to arbitrary execution. Versions 0.18.7, 0.17.1, 0.16.1, 0.15.24, 0.14.5, and 0.13.5 contain a patch for this issue. Some workarounds are available. On the web, providing a suitably constrained Content-Security-Policy mitigates most of the threat. With XS, building a binary that lacks the ability to load modules at runtime mitigates the entirety of the threat. That will look like an implementation of `fxFindModule` in a file like `xsPlatform.c` that calls `fxRejectModuleFile`.
- Published
- Aug 8, 2023
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.3% · 71th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-20
Report tools
Action score
39
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 39 / 40 · 9.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 1.3%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- yes
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 9.8
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 9.8
- agree
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| agoric | ses | cpe:2.3:a:agoric:ses |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- agoric ses0.13.0 and later · before 0.13.5
- agoric ses0.14.0 and later · before 0.14.5
- agoric ses0.15.0 and later · before 0.15.24
- agoric ses0.18.0 and later · before 0.18.7
- agoric ses0.16.0
- agoric ses0.17.0
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
endojs endo
- >= 0.18.0, < 0.18.7, = 0.17.0, = 0.16.0, >= 0.15.0, < 0.15.24, >= 0.14.0, < 0.14.5, >= 0.13.0, < 0.13.5affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | ses | from 0.13.0 · before 0.13.5 | 0.13.5 |
| npm | ses | from 0.14.0 · before 0.14.5 | 0.14.5 |
| npm | ses | from 0.15.0 · before 0.15.24 | 0.15.24 |
| npm | ses | from 0.16.0 · before 0.16.1 | 0.16.1 |
| npm | ses | from 0.17.0 · before 0.17.1 | 0.17.1 |
| npm | ses | from 0.18.0 · before 0.18.7 | 0.18.7 |
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| npm:ses | 0.13.5 | Package registry (OSV) |
| npm:ses | 0.14.5 | Package registry (OSV) |
| npm:ses | 0.15.24 | Package registry (OSV) |
| npm:ses | 0.16.1 | Package registry (OSV) |
| npm:ses | 0.17.1 | Package registry (OSV) |
| npm:ses | 0.18.7 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-20 · Improper Input ValidationCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesCAPEC-10likelihood: High · High
- Server Side Include (SSI) InjectionCAPEC-101likelihood: High · High
- Cross Zone ScriptingCAPEC-104likelihood: Medium · High
- Command Line Execution through SQL InjectionCAPEC-108likelihood: Low · Very High
- Object Relational Mapping InjectionCAPEC-109likelihood: Low · High
- SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter TamperingCAPEC-110likelihood: High · Very High
- Double EncodingCAPEC-120likelihood: Low · Medium
- Subverting Environment Variable ValuesCAPEC-13likelihood: High · Very High
ATT&CK techniques
- Obfuscated Files or InformationT1027
- Masquerading: Invalid Code SignatureT1036.001
- Steal Web Session CookieT1539
- Subvert Trust Controls: Code SigningT1553.002
- Impair Defenses:Impair Command History LoggingT1562.003
- Hijack Execution Flow:Dynamic Linker HijackingT1574.006
- Hijack Execution Flow:Path Interception by PATH Environment VariableT1574.007
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.