LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

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.

HighCVSS 7.7Not KEV-listedUpdated
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysishigh

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

This flaw lets a trusted or semi-trusted repository contributor turn documentation configuration into code execution on the TechDocs build server when Backstage TechDocs runs locally. The business risk is concentrated in developer portal environments where many teams can modify repositories processed by TechDocs.

Executive priority

Treat this as high priority for developer portal teams. Patch quickly if TechDocs builds run on shared infrastructure or process repositories from many contributors. The main decision is whether repository governance is strong enough while upgrades are scheduled.

Technical view

@backstage/plugin-techdocs-node before 1.13.11 and version 1.14.0 allowed unsafe MkDocs configuration when TechDocs used runIn: local. A user able to submit or modify mkdocs.yml could abuse MkDocs hooks to execute arbitrary Python code on the generator host. Fixed releases strip unsupported keys, including hooks.

Likely exposure

Organizations using Backstage TechDocs with @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node below 1.13.11 or at 1.14.0 are exposed, especially when runIn is local and repository contributors can edit mkdocs.yml. @techdocs/cli users may also be exposed through the same dependency.

Exploitation context

The sources do not report active exploitation, and KEV is false. Exploitation requires low privileges: the attacker must be able to submit or modify a repository mkdocs.yml processed by TechDocs. Attack complexity is rated high, but impact includes server-side code execution.

Researcher notes

This is CWE-94 code injection through MkDocs hooks configuration. The advisory states CI/CD builds using @techdocs/cli are not a mitigation because the CLI uses the same vulnerable package. Docker mode reduces exposure through isolation but is not described as complete mitigation.

Mitigation direction

  • Upgrade @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node to 1.13.11, 1.14.1, or later.
  • Upgrade @techdocs/cli to a version carrying the fixed dependency.
  • Prefer runIn: docker for container isolation where feasible.
  • Restrict mkdocs.yml edits to trusted contributors only.
  • Require PR review for mkdocs.yml changes.
  • Consider MkDocs before 1.4.0 if compatible with feature needs.

Validation and detection

  • Inventory Backstage instances and @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node versions.
  • Check TechDocs generator configuration for runIn: local.
  • Identify repositories processed by TechDocs and who can edit mkdocs.yml.
  • Review mkdocs.yml changes for hooks or unsupported configuration keys.
  • Confirm fixed builds remove unsupported keys and log warnings.
  • Check applicable Red Hat advisories for packaged product status.
Prepared
Confidence
high
Sources
8

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.

Open ATT&CK lookup
description · low confidence lookup

Execution behavior lookup

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.

Open ATT&CK lookup
description · low confidence lookup

Container behavior lookup

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.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2026-25153 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
High
CVSS
7.7 (3.1)
Known Exploited
No
Published

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:L

Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

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.

2CVSS vectors
5Timeline events
2ADP providers
7Source links

SSVC decision data

CISA-ADPCISA Coordinator
Timestamp
Version
2.0.3
Exploitation: noneAutomatable: noTechnical Impact: partial

CVSS vector scores

2 official scores

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.

ScoreVersionSeverityVectorExploitImpactSource
7.7CVSS 3.1HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:L1.85.3GitHub_M
7.7CVSS 3.1HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:L1.85.3redhat-SADP

Vulnerability scoring details

Base CVSS 3.1 score

7.7High
CVSS 3.1 vector shape for CVE-2026-25153Attack VectorAttack ComplexityPrivileges RequiredUser InteractionScopeConfidentiality ImpactIntegrity ImpactAvailability Impact

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:L

Attack Vector
NetworkAdjacentLocalPhysical
Attack Complexity
LowHigh
Privileges Required
NoneLowHigh
User Interaction
NoneRequired
Scope
ChangedUnchanged
Confidentiality Impact
HighLowNone
Integrity Impact
HighLowNone
Availability Impact
HighLowNone

Vulnerability timeline

Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.

  1. CVE reservedCVE Program

    The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.

  2. ADP timelineredhat-SADP

    Made public.

  3. CVE publishedCVE Program

    The CVE record was published.

  4. ADP timelineredhat-SADP

    Reported to Red Hat.

  5. CVE updatedCVE Program

    The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.

ADP provider summaries

CISA-ADPCISA ADP Vulnrichment
other:ssvc
redhat-SADP@backstage/plugin-techdocs-node: @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node vulnerable to arbitrary code execution via MkDocs hooks
other:Red Hat severity ratingcvssV3_1
  • 2026-01-30T22:00:57.084Z: Reported to Red Hat.
  • 2026-01-30T21:31:58.870Z: Made public.

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
backstagebackstage< 1.13.11, = 1.14.0Listed
Weakness

CWE details

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.