deps: bump go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk to v1.43.0 (CVE-2026-39883)#37
Closed
Copilot wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
deps: bump go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk to v1.43.0 (CVE-2026-39883)#37Copilot wants to merge 1 commit into
Copilot wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Copilot
AI
changed the title
[WIP] Fix PATH hijacking vulnerability in BSD kenv command
deps: bump go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk to v1.43.0 (CVE-2026-39883)
Apr 22, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk v1.42.0uses a barekenvcommand name (no absolute path) in its BSD host ID reader, enabling PATH hijacking on FreeBSD/BSD/Solaris at OTel SDK initialization. Fixed in v1.43.0 which uses/bin/kenv.Changes
go.mod/go.sum:go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdkpinned atv1.43.0(transitive viacloud.google.com/go/bigtable → otel/sdk/resource → otel/sdk)Reachability
The vulnerable code compiles only under BSD/Solaris build tags and is never reached on Linux. This project has no direct OTel SDK imports — exposure exists only if the emulator is run on a BSD host. The fix is in the dependency graph regardless of platform.
Original prompt
This section details the Dependabot vulnerability alert you should resolve
<alert_title>opentelemetry-go: BSD kenv command not using absolute path enables PATH hijacking</alert_title>
<alert_description>## Summary
The fix for GHSA-9h8m-3fm2-qjrq (CVE-2026-24051) changed the Darwin
ioregcommand to use an absolute path but left the BSDkenvcommand using a bare name, allowing the same PATH hijacking attack on BSD and Solaris platforms.Root Cause
sdk/resource/host_id.goline 42:Compare with the fixed Darwin path at line 58:
The
execCommandhelper atsdk/resource/host_id_exec.gousesexec.Command(name, arg...)which searches$PATHwhen the command name contains no path separator.Affected platforms (per build tag in
host_id_bsd.go:4): DragonFly BSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris.The
kenvpath is reached when/etc/hostiddoes not exist (line 38-40), which is common on FreeBSD systems.Attack
go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdkkenvbinary earlier in$PATHhostIDReaderBSD.read()callsexec.Command("kenv", ...)which resolves to the malicious binarySame attack vector and impact as CVE-2026-24051.
Suggested Fix
Use the absolute path:
On FreeBSD,
kenvis located at/bin/kenv.</alert_description>high
https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go/security/advisories/GHSA-hfvc-g4fc-pqhx http://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go/releases/tag/v1.43.0 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-39883 https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-hfvc-g4fc-pqhxGHSA-hfvc-g4fc-pqhx, CVE-2026-39883
go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk
go
<vulnerable_versions>= v1.42.0</vulnerable_versions>
<patched_version>1.43.0</patched_version>
<manifest_path>go.mod</manifest_path>
<agent_instructions>update all dependencies (
go get -u ./...)</agent_instructions><task_instructions>Resolve this alert by updating the affected package to a non-vulnerable version. Prefer the lowest non-vulnerable version (see the patched_version field above) over the latest to minimize breaking changes. Include a Reachability Assessment section in the PR description. Review the alert_description field to understand which APIs, features, or configurations are affected, then search the codebase for usage of those specific items. If the vulnerable code path is reachable, explain how (which files, APIs, or call sites use the affected functionality) and note that the codebase is actively exposed to this vulnerability. If the vulnerable code path is not reachable, explain why (e.g. the affected API is never called, the vulnerable configuration is not used) and note that the update is primarily to satisfy vulnerability scanners rather than to address an active risk. If the advisory is too vague to determine reachability (e.g. 'improper input validation' with no specific API named), state that reachability could not be determined and explain why. Include a confidence level in the reachability assessment (e.g. high confidence if the advisory names a specific API and you confirmed it is or is not called, low confidence if the usage is indirect and hard to trace). If no patched version is available, check the alert_description field for a Workarounds section — the advisory may describe configuration changes or usage patterns that mitigate the vulnerability without a version update. If a workaround is available, apply it and leave a code comment referencing the advisory identifier explaining it is a temporary mitigation. If neither a patch nor a workaround is available, explain in the PR description why the alert cannot be resolved automatically so a human reviewer can take over. Inspect the repository to determine which package manager is used (e.g. lock files, config files, build scripts) and use that tooling to perform the update — do not edit lock files directly. If the version constraint in the manifest (e.g. package.json, Gemfile, pyproject.toml) caps the version below the fix, update the constraint first. For transitive dependencies, determine whether it is simpler to update the direct dependency that pulls in the vulnerable package or to update the transitive dependency directly, and choose the least disruptive approach. If upgrading to fix the vulnerability forces a major version bump or known breaking changes, review the chang...