CVE-2023-30582
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA vulnerability has been identified in Node.js version 20, affecting users of the experimental permission model when the --allow-fs-read flag is used with a non-* argument. This flaw arises from an inadequate permission model that fails to restrict file watching through the fs.watchFile API. As a result, malicious actors can monitor files that they do not have explicit read access to. Please note that at the time this CVE was issued, the permission model is an experimental feature of Node.js.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceNode.js 20's experimental permission model has a flaw where the fs.watchFile API bypasses file read restrictions when --allow-fs-read is used with specific paths rather than wildcard (*) permissions, allowing unauthorized file monitoring.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check Node.js versionRun 'node --version' to confirm version 20.x is installedAffected if Node.js version starts with 20 (e.g., 20.0.0 through 20.x.x)
-
Identify if experimental permission model is enabledReview startup scripts, launch configurations, or process arguments for --experimental-permission flagAffected if --experimental-permission flag is present in the Node.js invocation
-
Inspect --allow-fs-read permission configurationExamine Node.js startup arguments or configuration files for --allow-fs-read settings; check if specific paths are listed rather than wildcard (*)Affected if --allow-fs-read is configured with specific file/directory paths (not '*') while experimental permissions are enabled
-
Detect fs.watchFile usage in application codeSearch codebase for 'fs.watchFile' or 'watchFile' calls, or monitor runtime file access patternsAffected if Application code or dependencies invoke fs.watchFile on paths that fall under the --allow-fs-read scope
-
Verify watch target falls within allowed read pathsCross-reference the paths being watched by fs.watchFile against the explicitly allowed paths in --allow-fs-read configurationAffected if fs.watchFile targets paths that are explicitly permitted via --allow-fs-read (non-wildcard) - creating an unintended monitoring vector
You are affected if running Node.js 20.x with --experimental-permission enabled, --allow-fs-read set to specific paths (not wildcards), and fs.watchFile is used to monitor files within those allowed paths.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataAvoid using the experimental permission model in production until the vulnerability is patched; if currently in use, audit file access patterns and consider additional sandboxing layers.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-30582 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-30582 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data