CVE-2026-25153: @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node vulnerable to arbitrary code execution via MkDocs hooks
Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node provides common node.js functionalities for TechDocs. In versions of @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node prior to 1.13.11 and 1.14.1, when TechDocs is configured with `runIn: local`, a malicious actor who can submit or modify a repository's `mkdocs.yml` file can execute arbitrary Python code on the TechDocs build server via MkDocs hooks configuration. @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node versions 1.13.11 and 1.14.1 contain a fix. The fix introduces an allowlist of supported MkDocs configuration keys. Unsupported configuration keys (including `hooks`) are now removed from `mkdocs.yml` before running the generator, with a warning logged to indicate which keys were removed. Users of `@techdocs/cli` should also upgrade to the latest version, which includes the fixed `@backstage/plugin-techdocs-node` dependency. Some workarounds are available. Configure TechDocs with `runIn: docker` instead of `runIn: local` to provide container isolation, though it does not fully mitigate the risk. Limit who can modify `mkdocs.yml` files in repositories that TechDocs processes; only allow trusted contributors. Implement PR review requirements for changes to `mkdocs.yml` files to detect malicious `hooks` configurations before they are merged. Use MkDocs < 1.4.0 (e.g., 1.3.1) which does not support hooks. Note: This may limit access to newer MkDocs features. Building documentation in CI/CD pipelines using `@techdocs/cli` does not mitigate this vulnerability, as the CLI uses the same vulnerable `@backstage/plugin-techdocs-node` package.
Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
A Backstage TechDocs setup can let a trusted-but-malicious repository contributor run Python code on the documentation build server by changing mkdocs.yml. The issue matters most where TechDocs builds many internal repositories locally and repository write access is broad.
Executive priority
Prioritize this as high where Backstage is a central developer portal and documentation builds run on shared infrastructure. The main business risk is compromise of the build server and access to internal developer systems or secrets reachable from it.
Technical view
@backstage/plugin-techdocs-node before 1.13.11 and 1.14.1 fails to block MkDocs hooks when TechDocs uses runIn: local. MkDocs hooks can execute arbitrary Python during generation. The fix allowlists supported MkDocs configuration keys and removes unsupported keys, including hooks, before running the generator.
Likely exposure
Exposure is likely limited to Backstage TechDocs users running affected @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node versions with runIn: local, where an actor can submit or modify mkdocs.yml in a processed repository.
Exploitation context
The source bundle does not show KEV listing or public in-the-wild exploitation. Abuse requires repository influence over mkdocs.yml and a TechDocs build path that processes it locally.
Researcher notes
This is CWE-94 with CVSS 7.7. The scope change and high confidentiality impact reflect server-side code execution during documentation generation. Evidence is specific to MkDocs hooks and local TechDocs execution; do not assume other Backstage components are affected.
Mitigation direction
Upgrade @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node to 1.13.11, 1.14.1, or later.
Upgrade @techdocs/cli to a latest version with the fixed dependency.
Configure TechDocs with runIn: docker for added isolation, noting it is incomplete mitigation.
Limit mkdocs.yml modification rights to trusted contributors.
Require pull request review for mkdocs.yml changes.
Consider MkDocs below 1.4.0 only if feature tradeoffs are acceptable.
Validation and detection
Inventory Backstage TechDocs installations and @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node versions.
Check whether TechDocs is configured with runIn: local.
List repositories whose mkdocs.yml files are processed by TechDocs.
Review recent mkdocs.yml changes for hooks or unsupported configuration keys.
Confirm fixed builds remove unsupported keys and log warnings.
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Potential ATT&CK relevance
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
cwe · medium confidence lookup
CWE-94: Code execution behavior lookup
Code execution and unsafe deserialization weaknesses often justify reviewing execution behavior and process telemetry. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
The CVE wording references code or command execution, so execution technique review may help defensive triage. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
The affected technology mentions containers, so container-specific ATT&CK technique review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
CWE-94 · source CWE mapping
Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.