Skip to content

Composer arbitrary command execution via a malicious package's Perforce source URL

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Aug 27, 2026 in composer/composer • Updated Sep 8, 2026

Package

composer composer/composer (Composer)

Affected versions

>= 2.3.0, < 2.10.3
>= 1.0, < 2.2.30

Patched versions

2.10.3
2.2.30

Description

Summary

If the p4 Perforce CLI client is installed, a malicious dependency package from a package repository allowing arbitrary perforce source URLs (packagist.org is safe) could execute arbitrary commands when running composer install or composer update. Composer passed a package's Perforce source address to the p4 CLI client without validating it. The p4 CLI client accepts addresses that mean "run this local command" instead of "connect to this server". This is remote code execution with the privileges of the user or CI account running Composer.

Am I affected?

You are only affected if all of the following are true:

  • The Perforce p4 command line client is installed and on the PATH of the machine running Composer.
  • An attacker can control a package metadata's source section with a perforce type. Packagist.org does not allow perforce source metadata, so you are only exploitable if you rely on another Composer repository (any custom composer-type repository, or an inline package repository entry), or a composer.lock file you obtained from somewhere you do not trust.
  • The package gets installed from source, either because it has no dist artifact or because source installs are selected (for example --prefer-source).

Plainly not affected: anyone without the p4 client installed, which is the large majority of Composer users. Perforce is an optional VCS integration. Also not affected: projects that only consume packages from Packagist.org, which does not allow Perforce source repositories and therefore cannot serve a package with a Perforce source address.

Most realistic way to get hit: a developer workstation or CI image that has Perforce tooling installed, pulling packages from a private or third party Composer repository that an attacker has compromised.

Patched versions

Composer now validates Perforce source addresses before handing them to the p4 client, and accepts only real network endpoints (an optional tcp/ssl transport with a host and port). Addresses that make the client spawn a local process are rejected, and the package fails validation on both update and install, before any p4 command runs. Fixed in Composer 2.10.3 and 2.2.30.

Note: If you legitimately use Perforce with an unusual P4PORT value that is not a plain host and port, Composer will now reject it.

Workarounds

Upgrading is the only complete fix.

Risk reduction short of upgrading:

  • Remove the p4 client from the PATH of machines that run Composer but do not use Perforce. This fully blocks this specific attack, since the vulnerability depends on that client being present.
  • Restrict configured repositories to sources you control or trust, and treat lock files from untrusted sources as untrusted input.

References

@Seldaek Seldaek published to composer/composer Aug 27, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Sep 1, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Sep 8, 2026
Reviewed Sep 8, 2026
Last updated Sep 8, 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 v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
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:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

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.
(44th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-84361

GHSA ID

GHSA-rvx4-ffvw-m9q3

Source code

Credits

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