Skip to content

MagicMirror Socket.IO module namespaces bypass configured IP whitelist and allow unauthenticated server-side actions

Low severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 1, 2026 in MagicMirrorOrg/MagicMirror • Updated Aug 18, 2026

Package

npm magicmirror (npm)

Affected versions

< 2.37.0

Patched versions

2.37.0

Description

Summary

MagicMirror applies ipWhitelist only as Express middleware, but the Socket.IO server is attached directly to the HTTP server without equivalent IP allowlist, origin, or namespace authentication checks. In a documented common deployment where MagicMirror listens on a non-loopback interface but expects ipWhitelist to restrict access, an untrusted network client can connect directly to module Socket.IO namespaces and send arbitrary module-helper notifications. This allows unauthenticated server-side requests through default modules and can reach command execution in the default updatenotification helper when a third-party module update is pending and the attacker supplies the update command through the trusted socket configuration path.

Details

The affected product is the npm package/application magicmirror at version 2.36.0, tested at commit fb41d24ef522e91e802e2a623ff6afbddeb3c9d8 from https://github.com/MagicMirrorOrg/MagicMirror.git.

Default committed settings bind to loopback and allow loopback only (js/defaults.js:8-13), so the remote network impact requires a documented common configuration where the server is reachable beyond loopback. The shipped sample explicitly documents non-loopback binding and IP allowlist behavior: config/config.js.sample:11-20 says address may be another interface or 0.0.0.0/::, and ipWhitelist controls allowed clients.

The trust-boundary issue is that Socket.IO is configured before and outside the Express middleware chain:

  • js/server.js:42-50 creates Socket.IO directly on the HTTP(S) server with cors.origin: /.*$/.
  • js/server.js:89-90 applies ipAccessControl(config.ipWhitelist) only with app.use(...), which protects Express routes and static files but not Socket.IO handshakes or namespaces.
  • A search of runtime files found no allowRequest, io.use(...), handshake IP check, or namespace authentication for Socket.IO; the only relevant matches were js/server.js:44 and js/server.js:90.
  • js/node_helper.js:88-103 registers every module namespace and dispatches every socket event and payload directly to socketNotificationReceived(...).

Once a client can reach the Socket.IO server, the following default-module server-side actions are reachable without an equivalent IP whitelist or module-authentication check:

  • defaultmodules/newsfeed/node_helper.js:12-17 accepts CHECK_ARTICLE_URL and calls checkArticleUrl(payload.url).
  • defaultmodules/newsfeed/node_helper.js:25-38 performs fetch(url, { method: "HEAD" }) on the supplied URL and sends the result back.
  • defaultmodules/calendar/node_helper.js:13-24 accepts ADD_CALENDAR/FETCH_CALENDAR socket messages.
  • defaultmodules/calendar/node_helper.js:40-58 accepts an arbitrary syntactically valid calendar URL and creates a fetcher.
  • defaultmodules/calendar/calendarfetcher.js:35-44 passes the URL into HTTPFetcher, whose fetch sink is js/http_fetcher.js:286-294.
  • defaultmodules/updatenotification/node_helper.js:46-68 accepts CONFIG, MODULES, and SCAN_UPDATES notifications and trusts the socket-provided config/module list.
  • defaultmodules/updatenotification/update_helper.js:43-47 stores update commands from config.
  • defaultmodules/updatenotification/update_helper.js:96-116 executes the selected update command with child_process.exec in the module directory.
  • defaultmodules/updatenotification/update_helper.js:221-227 looks up the command from config.updates by module name.

False-positive screening performed:

  • Express HTTP routes are protected by ipAccessControl(config.ipWhitelist) at js/server.js:89-90; this does not protect Socket.IO because Socket.IO is attached to the raw HTTP server and no Socket.IO middleware was found.
  • The explicit /cors HTTP endpoint has separate SSRF mitigations (js/server_functions.js:47-117) and is disabled by default (js/defaults.js:14); the confirmed request primitive here uses module-helper socket paths, not /cors.
  • The command-execution variant is not an unconditional default RCE: updatenotification only executes an update command for a non-core git-managed module that is considered behind. However, the trusted command source is attacker-controlled through the unauthenticated socket CONFIG message once this boundary is crossed.
  • Default loopback-only binding lowers default remote exposure, but the sample configuration documents exactly the deployment model where users rely on ipWhitelist for network restrictions.

Affected-version evidence: only magicmirror@2.36.0 at commit fb41d24ef522e91e802e2a623ff6afbddeb3c9d8 was tested. The affected range is unknown from this audit; earlier versions were not tested. No patched version or fix commit was identified locally.

PoC

The following safe local PoCs were run from a clean checkout of MagicMirror at commit fb41d24ef522e91e802e2a623ff6afbddeb3c9d8. Because node_modules were not installed in this audit environment and package.json:52 has a destructive postinstall (git clean -df fonts vendor modules/default), the commands use small Node harnesses with stubs for missing dependencies while exercising the vulnerable repository code paths directly. They do not contact external hosts and write only disposable /tmp marker files.

  1. Confirm that the runtime lacks Socket.IO IP allowlist controls:
grep -RIn --exclude-dir=node_modules --exclude-dir=.git --exclude-dir=.claude --exclude-dir=reports -E "allowRequest|io\.use\(|handshake|ipAccessControl\(|cors: \{|origin: /\.\*\$/" js defaultmodules serveronly config tests

Observed output:

js/server.js:44:				cors: {
js/server.js:90:			app.use(ipAccessControl(config.ipWhitelist));

This confirms the IP allowlist appears only as Express middleware and no Socket.IO handshake/namespace allowlist was present in the reviewed runtime files.

  1. Confirm a default module helper will perform a server-side request to an attacker-supplied loopback URL when driven through its socket notification handler:
node -e 'const Module=require("module"); const orig=Module._load; Module._load=(r,p,m)=>{ if(r==="logger") return {log(){},error(){},warn(){},info(){},debug(){}}; if(r==="node_helper") return {create:(o)=>function(){Object.assign(this,o);this.sendSocketNotification=(n,p)=>console.log("SOCKET",n,JSON.stringify(p));}}; if(r==="./newsfeedfetcher") return function(){}; return orig(r,p,m); }; const calls=[]; global.fetch=async(url,opts)=>{calls.push({url,opts}); return {headers:{get:(h)=>h==="x-frame-options"?"deny":null}};}; const Helper=require("./defaultmodules/newsfeed/node_helper"); const h=new Helper(); h.start(); h.socketNotificationReceived("CHECK_ARTICLE_URL",{url:"http://127.0.0.1:65535/internal"}); setTimeout(()=>console.log("fetchCalls=",JSON.stringify(calls)),10);'

Observed output:

SOCKET ARTICLE_URL_STATUS {"url":"http://127.0.0.1:65535/internal","canFrame":false}
fetchCalls= [{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:65535/internal","opts":{"method":"HEAD"}}]

Expected vulnerable output: the harness records a server-side HEAD request to http://127.0.0.1:65535/internal even though /cors SSRF protections are not involved.

  1. Confirm the conditional command-execution sink is reachable from the trusted socket-driven update path using a harmless /tmp marker command:
rm -f /tmp/mm-rce-marker
mkdir -p /tmp/mm-audit/modules/evil /tmp/mm-audit/defaultmodules
node -e 'const fs=require("node:fs"); const Module=require("module"); const orig=Module._load; Module._load=(r,p,m)=>{ if(r==="logger") return {log(){},error(){},warn(){},info(){},debug(){}}; if(r==="node_helper") return {create:(o)=>function(){Object.assign(this,o);this.sendSocketNotification=()=>{};}}; return orig(r,p,m); }; global.root_path="/tmp/mm-audit"; global.defaultModulesDir="defaultmodules"; fs.writeFileSync("/tmp/mm-audit/defaultmodules/defaultmodules.js","module.exports=[]"); const Helper=require("./defaultmodules/updatenotification/node_helper"); const h=new Helper(); h.gitHelper={add:async()=>{},getRepos:async()=>[{module:"evil",behind:1}],checkUpdates:()=>[{module:"evil",behind:1}]}; h.sendSocketNotification=(n,p)=>console.log("SOCKET",n,JSON.stringify(p)); (async()=>{ await h.socketNotificationReceived("CONFIG",{updates:[{evil:"printf ok > /tmp/mm-rce-marker"}],updateTimeout:5000,updateAutorestart:false,ignoreModules:[],sendUpdatesNotifications:false,updateInterval:60000,useModulesFromConfig:true}); await h.socketNotificationReceived("MODULES",["evil"]); console.log("marker=",fs.readFileSync("/tmp/mm-rce-marker","utf8")); process.exit(0); })();'
rm -f /tmp/mm-rce-marker
rm -rf /tmp/mm-audit

Observed output from the executed harness:

SOCKET REPO_STATUS {"module":"evil","behind":1}
SOCKET UPDATE_STATUS {"name":"evil","updateCommand":"printf ok > /tmp/mm-rce-marker","inProgress":true,"error":false,"updated":true,"needRestart":true}
marker= ok

Expected vulnerable output: marker= ok demonstrates the update command supplied through the trusted socket configuration path reached child_process.exec and wrote the harmless marker.

Negative/control cases:

  • With the shipped committed defaults (js/defaults.js:8-13), the server binds localhost and ipWhitelist includes only loopback, so a remote network attacker cannot reach either HTTP or Socket.IO unless the deployment is changed to a documented non-loopback address.
  • The updatenotification command execution path requires at least one non-core module update result; if checkUpdates() returns no third-party module with behind > 0, update_helper.parse(...) does not execute an update command.
  • The explicit /cors route was not used for the confirmed request primitive and has separate protocol/hostname/DNS checks.

Final repro re-check: the sink search, newsfeed socket request harness, and update marker harness were re-run after drafting; the observed outputs above are from this environment. Cleanup removed /tmp/mm-rce-marker and /tmp/mm-audit.

Impact

In a documented common non-loopback deployment that relies on ipWhitelist for access control, an unauthenticated network client can bypass the intended IP allowlist for Socket.IO module namespaces. The attacker can send arbitrary module-helper notifications and payloads as if they were a trusted browser client.

Confirmed impacts include:

  • Confidentiality/SSRF: server-side requests to attacker-chosen URLs through default module helpers, including loopback/internal URLs. The newsfeed PoC shows a HEAD request to 127.0.0.1.
  • Integrity/availability: arbitrary manipulation of module-helper state and periodic fetch/update behavior through trusted socket messages.
  • Conditional code execution: when a third-party git-managed module is considered behind by the update checker, an attacker can supply a command in the socket CONFIG payload and trigger child_process.exec; the PoC safely wrote a /tmp marker.

CVSS 3.1 rationale for the primary trust-boundary bypass with confirmed SSRF and conditional RCE variant: AV:A because MagicMirror's security policy says it is intended for trusted local/private networks and the documented non-loopback exposure is LAN-style; AC:H because default loopback settings must be changed and the RCE variant requires a pending third-party module update, though SSRF requires fewer conditions after reachability; PR:N because no application authentication is required; UI:N because the attacker connects directly to Socket.IO; S:C because the vulnerable application can cause requests/actions against other local/internal services and can execute commands in a child process in the conditional variant; C:L/I:L/A:L for confirmed internal request and helper-state/command side effects, with conservative scoring because unconditional default RCE was not shown.

Suggested remediation

Apply the same access-control decision to Socket.IO handshakes and namespaces as to Express routes. Concretely, add a Socket.IO allowRequest or io.use(...) middleware that normalizes socket.handshake.address/request IPs with the same ipAccessControl logic, and reject clients not allowed by config.ipWhitelist. Avoid relying on CORS for authorization; keep origin checks as a browser hardening layer only.

Also add module-helper authorization so arbitrary clients cannot send privileged server-side module notifications. For example, issue an unguessable per-session/module token to the served client and require it on helper messages, or separate read-only client events from privileged server-maintenance actions.

For defense in depth:

  • Add SSRF protections or allowlists to calendar/newsfeed/weather helper fetch paths, not only /cors.
  • Do not accept updatenotification update commands from socket payloads; use the server-loaded config only, validate module names against configured modules, and avoid shell execution where possible.
  • Add regression tests proving a disallowed IP receives a rejected Socket.IO handshake even when Express routes are protected, and proving /newsfeed//calendar helper messages from unauthenticated sockets cannot trigger server-side requests or update commands.

References

Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Aug 18, 2026
Reviewed Aug 18, 2026
Last updated Aug 18, 2026

Severity

Low

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 Adjacent
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity Low
Availability Low
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity Low
Availability Low

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:A/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L

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.
(20th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Access Control

The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-63641

GHSA ID

GHSA-w26r-fwg8-rcp3

Credits

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