AI Threat Alert
CVE-2026-64650
MEDIUMThe `@ai-sdk/harness-opencode` tool is an HarnessV1 adapter backed by @openai/codex-sdk, which drives the codex command line interface. Prior to version 1.0.29, the tool relay authorizes requests from any process whose command line contains an allowed helper script path (the Codex CLI shim). This...
Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.
What systems are affected?
| Package | Ecosystem | Vulnerable Range | Patched |
|---|---|---|---|
| @ai-sdk/harness-codex | — | — | No patch |
Do you use @ai-sdk/harness-codex? You're affected.
How severe is it?
What should I do?
No patch available
Monitor for updates. Consider compensating controls or temporary mitigations.
Which compliance frameworks are affected?
Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-64650?
The `@ai-sdk/harness-opencode` tool is an HarnessV1 adapter backed by @openai/codex-sdk, which drives the codex command line interface. Prior to version 1.0.29, the tool relay authorizes requests from any process whose command line contains an allowed helper script path (the Codex CLI shim). This allows untrusted code executing in the sandbox to invoke arbitrary host-exposed tools, including secret lookups, deployment operations, and cloud API calls without a corresponding model-authorized tool-call event. Exploitation requires a Linux environment (the vulnerable fallback checks `process.platform === 'linux'` and reads `/proc`); an active harness session with one or more host-provided tools; and untrusted code executing in the sandbox (e.g. a malicious dependency, build script, or lifecycle hook) The fix in version 1.0.29 removes the process-path authorization fallback entirely. Relay requests are now only accepted after exact, short-lived, one-time authorization matching the tool name and input from a bridge-observed model event. Some workarounds are available. Do not run the Codex harness on untrusted repositories or with untrusted dependencies, and/or limit host-exposed tools to non-sensitive operations when working with untrusted code.
Is CVE-2026-64650 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-64650 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix CVE-2026-64650?
No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-64650?
No CVSS score has been assigned yet.
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
The `@ai-sdk/harness-opencode` tool is an HarnessV1 adapter backed by @openai/codex-sdk, which drives the codex command line interface. Prior to version 1.0.29, the tool relay authorizes requests from any process whose command line contains an allowed helper script path (the Codex CLI shim). This allows untrusted code executing in the sandbox to invoke arbitrary host-exposed tools, including secret lookups, deployment operations, and cloud API calls without a corresponding model-authorized tool-call event. Exploitation requires a Linux environment (the vulnerable fallback checks `process.platform === 'linux'` and reads `/proc`); an active harness session with one or more host-provided tools; and untrusted code executing in the sandbox (e.g. a malicious dependency, build script, or lifecycle hook) The fix in version 1.0.29 removes the process-path authorization fallback entirely. Relay requests are now only accepted after exact, short-lived, one-time authorization matching the tool name and input from a bridge-observed model event. Some workarounds are available. Do not run the Codex harness on untrusted repositories or with untrusted dependencies, and/or limit host-exposed tools to non-sensitive operations when working with untrusted code.
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-863 — Incorrect Authorization: The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
- [Architecture and Design] Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- [Architecture and Design] Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
Source: MITRE CWE corpus.
References
- github.com/vercel/ai/pull/17105 x_refsource_MISC
- github.com/vercel/ai/security/advisories/GHSA-qw9h-448j-6rph x_refsource_CONFIRM