Skip to content

TanStack Start - Server Core: Inbound server-function request deserialization could invoke a sibling client-referenced server function

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 8, 2026 in TanStack/router • Updated May 14, 2026

Package

npm @tanstack/start-server-core (npm)

Affected versions

< 1.167.30

Patched versions

1.167.30

Description

Summary

A type-confusion bug in seroval ≤ 1.5.2 (upstream advisory) allowed a crafted JSON body sent to one TanStack Start server function to trigger invocation of a different client-referenced server function as a side effect of deserializing the request payload.

This is not an authentication bypass and not remote code execution. The mechanism only invokes server functions that the same client could already reach directly via /_serverFn/, and the target function's full middleware chain — including any user-supplied authentication, authorization, and inputValidator — runs as it would on a direct call.

Impact

To be exploitable in any meaningful sense, an application would need to expose a client-referenced server function that:

  • Performs a privileged side effect, and
  • Has no authentication/authorization middleware, and
  • Has no input validation

A function meeting all three is already directly callable by any unauthenticated client at its own endpoint, so the practical impact on correctly-written applications is nil. The residual concerns are:

A request to function A could cause function B to also execute, which may surprise observability/audit logging that keys off the request URL.

Request-level middleware (as opposed to per-function middleware) does not re-run for the inner invocation.
Server-only functions (isClientReferenced: false) cannot be reached through this mechanism.

Patches

Upgrade to @tanstack/start-server-core ≥ 1.167.30 (or the equivalent dated release of @tanstack/react-start / @tanstack/solid-start). The fix bumps seroval to ≥ 1.5.3 and adds defense-in-depth to the serialization adapter plugin shape so adapter payloads cannot be confused with internal seroval node types.

Workarounds

If you cannot upgrade immediately, ensure every createServerFn(...) exposed to the client has both an .inputValidator(...) and authentication/authorization middleware via .middleware([...]). This is recommended regardless of this advisory.

Credits

References

@tannerlinsley tannerlinsley published to TanStack/router May 8, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 14, 2026
Reviewed May 14, 2026
Last updated May 14, 2026

Severity

Moderate

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

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Deserialization of Untrusted Data

The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid. Learn more on MITRE.

Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')

The product allocates or initializes a resource such as a pointer, object, or variable using one type, but it later accesses that resource using a type that is incompatible with the original type. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-9m65-766c-r333

Source code

Credits

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