GHSA-4936-9hrh-qqpw @tinacms/cli: Remote Code Execution in @tinacms/cli via Forestry migration — unsanitised __TINA_INTERNAL__ marker in user-controlled YAML labels
DescriptionSummary`@tinacms/cli` contains a Remote Code Execution vulnerability in its
Forestry-to-Tina migration command. The internal helper `addVariablesToCode`
unquotes any value matching the marker `"__TINA_INTERNAL__:::(.*?):::"`
inside the stringified collection JSON. User-supplied `label` and `name`
fields from `.forestry/**/*.yml` are placed into that JSON without any
sanitisation. An attacker who controls a Forestry-style project can therefore
inject arbitrary JavaScript into the generated `tina/templates.{ts,js}`
file. The injected code is written at module top level, so it executes
**the moment the developer runs `tinacms dev` or `tinacms build`**, with the
developer's privileges.Details**Vulnerable code path:**`packages/@tinacms/cli/src/cmds/forestry-migrate/util/index.ts`
— `transformForestryFieldsToTinaFields()` writes `forestryField.label`
(and `.name`) straight into TinaField objects (no sanitisation).`packages/@tinacms/cli/src/cmds/forestry-migrate/util/codeTransformer.ts`,
lines 16-22 — the regex-based unquoter:`codeTransformer.ts` lines 80-88 — the field array is
`JSON.stringify`-ed and then handed to `addVariablesToCode`. Because
`JSON.stringify` does **not** escape single quotes or backticks, an
attacker who avoids `"` in the payload survives the JSON pass intact.`packages/@tinacms/cli/src/cmds/init/apply.ts` lines 110-116 — the
resulting string is written to `tina/templates.{ts,js}` and imported by
the generated `tina/config.{ts,js}`, which `tinacms dev` evaluates.**Why it executes immediately:** the regex unquoting allows the attacker's
payload to *close the surrounding object/array and the enclosing
`xxxFields()` function*, drop a top-level IIFE, and then start a dummy
function that swallows the trailing JSON. The IIFE is at module scope,
so it runs the instant `tina/config.ts` imports `./templates`.PoCEnd-to-end verified against `tinacms` and `@tinacms/cli@2.3.1`, built from
commit `ae1ab5d0f` of `tinacms/tinacms` on Windows 11 + Node.js v24
(behaviour is identical on Node 22).**Step 1 — attacker prepares a malicious Forestry project**`.forestry/settings.yml``.forestry/front_matter/templates/rce.yml`**Note on payload encoding.** The original disclosure draft used double
quotes inside the payload (`console.log("RCE")`). `JSON.stringify` escapes
those to `\"`, which makes the generated TypeScript syntactically invalid
and is rejected by Prettier before the file is written. Using single
quotes or backticks for the inner string literals is required for the
exploit to succeed.**Step 2 — victim runs the standard onboarding flow****Step 3 — generated `tina/templates.ts` (verbatim, from a clean run)****Step 4 — observed result**The `=== RCE SUCCESSFUL ===` line is printed **before** the dev server
fails on the (intentionally minimal) config, proving the malicious code
executed during config evaluation.Impact**Class:** Remote Code Execution (code injection into a generated source
file that is automatically executed by the dev server/build).**Attack vector:** Any developer who runs `tinacms init` on a Forestry
project they did not author (e.g. a starter template, a community fork,
a "convert my site to Tina" service, an evaluation of a third-party
CMS migration) and then runs `tinacms dev` or `tinacms build`.**Privileges obtained:** Full execution under the developer's user
account. Practical consequences include:Exfiltration of environment variables, `.env` files, SSH keys,
`~/.aws/credentials`, `~/.npmrc` tokens, `~/.config/gh/hosts.yml`.Source-code modification (planting backdoors before the developer's
next commit / publish).Supply-chain abuse via the developer's `npm publish` and `git push`
credentials.Persistence via shell rc files or scheduled tasks.**Authentication:** None required from the attacker.**User interaction:** Required — victim must run the migration and then
the dev/build command. The migration prompt defaults to "yes".Suggested RemediationEither fix is sufficient; **Option B is preferred** because it is
structurally impossible to bypass and does not silently drop user content.Option A — sanitise user-controlled strings (the disclosure draft's proposal)Apply to **every** user-controlled string that flows into a TinaField
object — at minimum `forestryField.label`, `forestryField.name`,
`forestryField.template`, `forestryField.config.options[*]`,
`forestryField.config.source.section`, and the equivalents on nested
`fields`/`template_types` recursive paths.Option B — change the marker to a sequence that cannot survive `JSON.stringify` of user data`JSON.stringify` escapes `` to the six-character sequence
``, so any literal control character supplied via YAML can never
reconstruct the marker. The internal callers (`makeFieldsWithInternalCode`)
keep emitting real `` bytes, so the legitimate flow continues to
work and no user content is silently mutated.Defence-in-depthRegardless of which option ships, the migration code should also:Reject `forestryField.label` / `.name` that contain newlines or NUL
bytes (Forestry never produced them).Wrap the eventual `prettier.format(...)` call so that if formatting
fails the build aborts (today an exception is propagated, which is
good — keep it that way).CreditReported by **AnGrY-Althaf** (`angry.althaf@gmail.com`).End-to-end PoC executed locally against
`tinacms@2.3.1` / `@tinacms/cli@2.3.1` built from commit `ae1ab5d0f`
of `https://github.com/tinacms/tinacms`.
CVSS v3.1 score: 7.8