Notepad++ release 8.9.6.1

fml2

@donho The one I downloaded from the official web site https://notepad-plus-plus.org/downloads/v8.9.6.1/ (64 bit).

PeterJones

@donho said:

How about an empty supressRunAlertDialog.xml besides of notepad++exe to suppress the warning dialog?

I think that should work:

in a normal install, that would be in the safe/UAC-protected Program Files hierarchy, so couldn’t be created by a malicious actor without UAC
it would allow someone with admin privileges to make the executive decision to disable that safety feature

It could, in theory, be made more fine-grained – the XML could contain actual information, such as a list of “additional safe directories” (like Excel allows you to specify so that you can run VBA macros even if your file is in an alternate location), so your for-loop across the safe directories could include those from that file.

The empty file would obviously be easier to implement, but I would be fine with either solution. (And given how many CVE’s have been fixed in v8.9.4-v8.9.6.1, I don’t think my complaint about this one should prevent triggering auto-update, since I make do with existing until v8.9.7)

donho

@fml2 ,

The one I downloaded from the official web site https://notepad-plus-plus.org/downloads/v8.9.6.1/ (64 bit).

I know.
What I need to know as information is, x64 or x86? NSIS exe Installer or MSI?

donho

@PeterJones said:

It could, in theory, be made more fine-grained – the XML could contain actual information, such as a list of “additional safe directories” that Excel allows you to specify so that you can run VBA macros even if your file is in an alternate location, so your for-loop across the safe directories could include those from that file.

The empty file would obviously be easier to implement, but I would be fine with either solution. (And given how many CVE’s have been fixed in v8.9.4-v8.9.6.1, I don’t think my complaint about this one should prevent triggering auto-update, since I make do with existing until v8.9.7)

The empty XML file is not only easier to implement, but it is also the only viable solution IMO. I considered storing a list of user-validated commands, or even a simple boolean like “Never Alert Dialog” inside config.xml - but obviously config.xml is not in a protected directory, as described in CVE-2026-48778.

OTOH, supressRunAlertDialog.xml solves the issue - it can be placed by users with admin rights to restore the old behaviour back (no confirmation dialog), and we can also include it in the installer (WITHOUT by default) so the previous behaviour can be restored during the installation - with the user’s awareness.

Sorry for breaking the old workflow - but I cannot simply ignore this vulnerability. The reporter will publish it in 3 months anyway, with or without a fix, and it is a valid issue.

PeterJones

@donho said:

the only viable solution IMO

It’s not the only viable solution. The exception list could go in suppressRunAlertDialog.xml in the Program Files directory – so the user with Admin/UAC could edit the list, but a normal user could not – and this is what I was trying to imply with my phrasing above, but apparently didn’t get that point across. There is zero difference in security between an empty suppressRunAlertDialog.xml in Program Files and a suppressRunAlertDialog.xml in Program files containing actual XML data with the list of files.

But as I said, I’d be fine with the simpler version.

fml2

@donho x64, installer (exe)

donho

@PeterJones
Could you pass me an example you would use for you in supressRunAlertDialog.xml?

PeterJones

@donho ,

Could you pass me an example you would use for you in supressRunAlertDialog.xml?

My thought was something like,

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<NotepadPlus>
    <RunMenuSafeDirectories>
        <RunDirectory>C:\Users\peter\AppData\Local\Programs\Python\Python314\</RunDirectory>
        <RunDirectory>c:\strawberry\perl\</RunDirectory>
        <RunDirectory>c:\strawberry\c\</RunDirectory>
    </RunMenuSafeDirectories>
</NotepadPlus>

or

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<NotepadPlus>
    <RunMenuSafeDirectories>
        <RunDirectory path="C:\Users\peter\AppData\Local\Programs\Python\Python314\" />
        <RunDirectory path="c:\strawberry\perl\" />
        <RunDirectory path="c:\strawberry\c\" />
    </RunMenuSafeDirectories>
</NotepadPlus>

(whether you prefer storing the data in the content or in an attribute)

These directories could then be added to the list of “safe directories” that you used in isInTrustedDirectory(), so that those directories (and their subdirectories) would be considered “safe”, too.

Since that XML would still be in Program Files, it would have the same level of security as a zero-byte file in the same directory, but give more granular control, so that the advanced user with UAC/Admin privileges could define certain directories that they want to consider safe, while still not allowing all directories to be in the path (thus, an attempted shortcuts.xml injection would have to know that on my system, I only allowed files in those specific extra paths, which I would presumably have some sort of protection on, so that they couldn’t be added to without my knowledge).

But again: I understand triggering v8.9.6.1 for auto-update without waiting for this; this would be a new feature of v8.9.7 instead. And, after looking at my suggestion, if you still decide that you wanted just the simple empty file, that will work; I just think this would be better for allowing better control, so that the unsafe-directory notification wasn’t an all-or-nothing prospect.

Coises

@donho said:

supressRunAlertDialog.xml solves the issue

I am wondering about something here… I’m not sure if this is a problem or not, and I hope you’ll forgive me, but it would take me a lot longer to rearrange my system to test it that it will probably take for someone who already knows how this works to consider it.

The alert dialog is, I gather, raised by Notepad++. Consider this condition:

Notepad++ is installed on a corporate-managed workstation which is fairly locked down.
Users’ ability to execute programs is restricted; they cannot execute an arbitrary program from an arbitrary directory (so they can’t install their own programs, even as portables), but they can execute Notepad++.

Does this vulnerability mean that a user, by manipulating the shortcuts file (and responding OK to the prompt in 8.9.6.1), would be able to execute an arbitrary program from an arbitrary directory (as it would be executing under the control of Notepad++, which has already been whitelisted)? Or would there still be a UAC prompt that the user could not satisfy?

As you can imagine, I ask because if this represents a work-around for executing forbidden programs, it could become a reason system administrators would consider Notepad++ unsafe to install.

PeterJones

@Coises said:

Does this vulnerability mean that a user, by manipulating the shortcuts file (and responding OK to the prompt in 8.9.6.1), would be able to execute an arbitrary program from an arbitrary directory (as it would be executing under the control of Notepad++, which has already been whitelisted)?

From my understanding, any “corporate management” system that would disallow running a specific executable by double-click or by command-line would also disallow it from running by ShellExecute. (if they didn’t, it would be an obvious hole that would have already been violated, and would have nothing to do with Notepad++ specifically).

Or would there still be a UAC prompt that the user could not satisfy?

If the system were set up to require UAC to run “untrusted” apps (which is how it used to be for me), then I would think there would still be the UAC prompt.

I don’t think your scenario is feasible (any more so than using any app that embeds a shell-execute).