Summary

ipRestriction() does not canonicalize IPv4-mapped IPv6 client addresses (e.g. ::ffff:127.0.0.1) before applying IPv4 allow or deny rules. In environments such as Node.js dual-stack, this can cause IPv4 rules to fail to match, leading to unintended authorization behavior.

Details

The middleware classifies client addresses based on their textual form. Addresses containing ":" are treated as IPv6, including IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses such as ::ffff:127.0.0.1. These addresses are not normalized to IPv4 before matching.

As a result:

IPv4 static rules (e.g. 127.0.0.1) do not match because the raw string differs IPv4 CIDR rules (e.g. 127.0.0.0/8, 10.0.0.0/8) are skipped because the address is treated as IPv6

For example, with:

denyList: ['127.0.0.1']

a request from 127.0.0.1 may be represented as ::ffff:127.0.0.1 and bypass the deny rule.

This behavior commonly occurs in Node.js environments where IPv4 clients are exposed as IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses.

Impact

Applications that rely on IPv4-based ipRestriction() rules may incorrectly allow or deny requests.

In affected deployments, a denied IPv4 client may bypass access restrictions. Conversely, legitimate clients may be rejected when using IPv4 allow lists.

Summary

A path traversal issue in toSSG() allows files to be written outside the configured output directory during static site generation. When using dynamic route parameters via ssgParams, specially crafted values can cause generated file paths to escape the intended output directory.

Details

The static site generation process creates output files based on route paths derived from application routes and parameters. When ssgParams is used to provide values for dynamic routes, those values are used to construct output file paths. If these values contain traversal sequences (e.g. ..), the resulting output path may resolve outside the configured output directory. As a result, files may be written to unintended locations instead of being confined within the specified output directory.

For example: ts import { Hono } from 'hono' import { toSSG, ssgParams } from 'hono/ssg'

const app = new Hono()

app.get('/:id', ssgParams([{ id: '../pwned' }]), (c) => { return c.text('pwned') })

toSSG(app, fs, { dir: './static' })

In this case, the generated output path may resolve outside ./static, resulting in a file being written outside the intended output directory.

Impact

An attacker who can influence values passed to ssgParams during the build process may be able to write files outside the intended output directory.

Depending on the build and deployment environment, this may:

overwrite unintended files affect generated artifacts impact deployment outputs or downstream tooling

This issue is limited to build-time static site generation and does not affect request-time routing.

Summary

A discrepancy between browser cookie parsing and parse() handling allows cookie prefix protections to be bypassed.

Cookie names that are treated as distinct by the browser may be normalized to the same key by parse(), allowing attacker-controlled cookies to override legitimate ones.

Details

Browsers follow RFC 6265bis and only trim SP (0x20) and HTAB (0x09) from cookie names. Other characters, such as the non-breaking space (U+00A0), are preserved as part of the cookie name.

For example, the browser treats the following cookies as distinct:

"dummy-cookie" "\u00a0dummy-cookie"

However, parse() previously used JavaScript's trim(), which removes a broader set of characters including U+00A0. As a result, both names are normalized to:

"dummy-cookie"

This mismatch allows attacker-controlled cookies with a U+00A0 prefix to shadow or override legitimate cookies when accessed via getCookie().

Impact

An attacker who can set cookies (e.g., via a man-in-the-middle on a non-secure page or other injection vector) can bypass cookie prefix protections and override sensitive cookies.

This may lead to:

Bypassing Secure- and Host- prefix protections Overriding cookies that rely on the Secure attribute Session fixation or session hijacking depending on application usage

This issue affects applications that rely on getCookie() for security-sensitive cookie handling.

Summary

A path handling inconsistency in serveStatic allows protected static files to be accessed by using repeated slashes (//) in the request path.

When route-based middleware (e.g., /admin/) is used for authorization, the router may not match paths containing repeated slashes, while serveStatic resolves them as normalized paths. This can lead to a middleware bypass.

Details

The routing layer and serveStatic handle repeated slashes differently.

For example:

/admin/secret.txt => matches /admin/ /admin//secret.txt => may not match /admin/

However, serveStatic may interpret both paths as the same file location (e.g., admin/secret.txt) and return the file.

This inconsistency allows a request such as:

GET //admin/secret.txt

to bypass middleware registered on /admin/ and access protected files.

The issue has been fixed by rejecting paths that contain repeated slashes, ensuring consistent behavior between route matching and static file resolution.

Impact

An attacker can access static files that are intended to be protected by route-based middleware by using repeated slashes in the request path.

This can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive files under the static root.

This issue affects applications that rely on serveStatic together with route-based middleware for access control.