← Back

Nodejs

nodejs

220 CVEs • 2 products

Products (2)

Click to collapse
Toggle
Node.js
node.js
Undici
undici

CVEs (220)

CVE
VENDORS
PRODUCTS
UPDATED
PUBLISHED
CVSS
1Nodejs
1Undici
Sep 4, 2026
Jun 17, 2026
N/A· v4
7.4 HIGH· v3
N/A· v2
Impact: undici's ProxyAgent silently drops the requestTls option when configured with a SOCKS5 proxy URI (socks5:// or socks://). The target HTTPS connection through the SOCKS5 tunnel falls back to Node's default trust s...Show more
Impact: undici's ProxyAgent silently drops the requestTls option when configured with a SOCKS5 proxy URI (socks5:// or socks://). The target HTTPS connection through the SOCKS5 tunnel falls back to Node's default trust store, ignoring user-configured ca, cert, key, rejectUnauthorized, and servername settings. Applications that pin to an internal or corporate CA via requestTls.ca will, when their proxy URI is SOCKS5, get the default Mozilla CA bundle as the trust anchor instead. Any cert signed by any publicly-trusted CA for the target hostname is accepted, breaking the intended pin and enabling MITM read and tamper of the HTTPS exchange. Affected applications are those that use undici's ProxyAgent (or Socks5ProxyAgent directly) with SOCKS5 AND rely on requestTls for TLS scope restriction. The bug was introduced in undici 7.23.0 when SOCKS5 support was added. Patches: Upgrade to undici v7.28.0 or v8.5.0. Workarounds: No workaround is available within the SOCKS5 path. If a SOCKS5 proxy with TLS scope restriction is required and an upgrade is not yet possible, route the traffic through an HTTP-proxy ProxyAgent instead, where requestTls is honored correctly.Show less
1Nodejs
1Undici
Jun 25, 2026
Jun 17, 2026
N/A· v4
5.9 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
Impact: undici's cookie parser in parseSetCookie percent-decodes cookie values via qsUnescape, turning encoded sequences like %0D%0A, %00, %3B, and %3D into their literal byte equivalents. RFC 6265 §5.4 does not specify...Show more
Impact: undici's cookie parser in parseSetCookie percent-decodes cookie values via qsUnescape, turning encoded sequences like %0D%0A, %00, %3B, and %3D into their literal byte equivalents. RFC 6265 §5.4 does not specify any decoding and browsers do not decode either. Applications that parse a Set-Cookie header and then forward the parsed value into a response header (proxies, middleware, SSR frameworks) become vulnerable to HTTP response header injection: an attacker-controlled upstream can inject arbitrary Set-Cookie, Location, or Cache-Control headers into the application's downstream response, enabling session fixation, open redirect, or cache poisoning. Affected applications are those that use undici's cookie parsing (parseSetCookie, parseCookie, getSetCookies) and forward the parsed cookie value into a response header. This was introduced in undici 7.0.0 via PR #3789. Patches: Upgrade to undici v6.26.0, v7.28.0 or v8.5.0. Workarounds: If upgrade is not immediately possible, do not forward values returned by parseSetCookie/parseCookie/getSetCookies directly into response headers; sanitize the value first to strip or reject CR, LF, NUL, ;, and = bytes.Show less
1Nodejs
1Undici
Jun 25, 2026
Jun 17, 2026
N/A· v4
5.9 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
Impact: Undici's cache interceptor incorrectly classifies some responses as cacheable when the upstream Cache-Control header uses whitespace-padded qualified private or no-cache field names such as private=" authorizatio...Show more
Impact: Undici's cache interceptor incorrectly classifies some responses as cacheable when the upstream Cache-Control header uses whitespace-padded qualified private or no-cache field names such as private=" authorization" or no-cache="\tauthorization". The parser preserves the surrounding whitespace, so later comparisons against the literal authorization field name fail and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this allows a response containing one user's authenticated data to be served from cache to a subsequent caller, including an unauthenticated caller, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. Affected applications are those that explicitly enable the cache interceptor (interceptors.cache()) in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with non-canonical qualified private or no-cache directives. Patches: Upgrade to undici v7.28.0 or v8.5.0. Workarounds: If upgrade is not immediately possible, disable shared-cache mode for traffic that includes Authorization headers, avoid caching responses to authenticated requests, or add Vary: Authorization upstream.Show less
1Nodejs
1Undici
Sep 4, 2026
Jun 17, 2026
N/A· v4
8.8 HIGH· v3
N/A· v2
Impact: When using Socks5ProxyAgent, undici reuses a single connection pool across different origins without verifying that the pool's origin matches the requested origin. All requests are dispatched through the pool con...Show more
Impact: When using Socks5ProxyAgent, undici reuses a single connection pool across different origins without verifying that the pool's origin matches the requested origin. All requests are dispatched through the pool connected to the first origin, regardless of the intended destination. This causes cross-origin request routing: credentials and request data intended for origin B are sent to origin A, responses from the wrong origin are trusted, and HTTPS requests may be silently downgraded to HTTP. Impacted users are applications that use Socks5ProxyAgent (directly or via setGlobalDispatcher) and make requests to more than one origin. This was introduced in undici 7.23.0 via PR #4385 and affects all versions through 8.1.0. Patches: Upgrade to undici v7.26.0 or v8.2.0. Workarounds: Use a separate Socks5ProxyAgent instance per origin, or avoid using Socks5ProxyAgent with multiple origins.Show less
1Nodejs
1Undici
Jun 27, 2026
Jun 17, 2026
N/A· v4
3.7 LOW· v3
N/A· v2
Impact: Undici's HTTP/1.1 client is vulnerable to response queue poisoning on reused keep-alive sockets. An attacker-controlled upstream server can inject an unsolicited HTTP/1.1 response onto an idle socket after a requ...Show more
Impact: Undici's HTTP/1.1 client is vulnerable to response queue poisoning on reused keep-alive sockets. An attacker-controlled upstream server can inject an unsolicited HTTP/1.1 response onto an idle socket after a request completes. When the client dispatches the next request on that socket, it associates the injected response with the new request, causing responses to be delivered to the wrong requests. This requires an attacker-controlled or compromised upstream HTTP/1.1 server and keep-alive connection reuse. Patches: Upgrade to undici v6.26.0, v7.28.0 or v8.5.0. Workarounds: Disable keep-alive connection reuse by setting keepAliveTimeout: 0 on the Client or Pool.Show less
1Nodejs
1Undici
Jun 25, 2026
Jun 17, 2026
N/A· v4
3.7 LOW· v3
N/A· v2
Impact: When undici parses a Set-Cookie header, it accepts any SameSite attribute value that contains Strict, Lax, or None as a substring, rather than the case-insensitive exact match specified by RFC 6265. Non-spec valu...Show more
Impact: When undici parses a Set-Cookie header, it accepts any SameSite attribute value that contains Strict, Lax, or None as a substring, rather than the case-insensitive exact match specified by RFC 6265. Non-spec values are silently mapped to one of the three standard tokens. For example, SameSite=NoneOfYourBusiness is parsed as None (the most permissive setting), and SameSite=StrictLax is parsed as Lax (a downgrade from Strict). Affected applications are those that consume Set-Cookie headers from server responses (for example via undici's fetch or proxy code paths) and then forward or rely on the parsed sameSite attribute. A malicious or non-compliant server can coerce the consumer's view of a cookie's SameSite policy to a weaker value, silently degrading the SameSite enforcement the cookie is supposed to provide. This was introduced in undici 5.15.0 when the cookies feature was added. Patches: Upgrade to undici v6.26.0, v7.28.0 or v8.5.0. Workarounds: After parsing a Set-Cookie header, validate that the resulting sameSite attribute is one of 'Strict', 'Lax', or 'None' (exact, case-insensitive) before forwarding or relying on it.Show less
1Nodejs
1Undici
Jun 25, 2026
Jun 17, 2026
N/A· v4
7.5 HIGH· v3
N/A· v2
Impact: The undici WebSocket client enforces maxPayloadSize per-frame but does not enforce the cumulative size of fragmented uncompressed messages. A malicious WebSocket server can stream many small fragments that each p...Show more
Impact: The undici WebSocket client enforces maxPayloadSize per-frame but does not enforce the cumulative size of fragmented uncompressed messages. A malicious WebSocket server can stream many small fragments that each pass per-frame validation but collectively exceed the configured limit, causing unbounded memory growth in the client process. The result is memory exhaustion and a denial of service. Affected applications are those using the undici WebSocket client (new WebSocket(...)) that can be induced to connect to an attacker-controlled or compromised WebSocket endpoint. This is a regression specific to undici 8.1.0. The 6.25.0 line shipped the equivalent cumulative check from the start and is unaffected. The 7.x line never had the maxPayloadSize feature and is also unaffected. Patches: Upgrade to undici >= 8.5.0. Workarounds: No workaround is available. The fix must be applied through an upgrade.Show less
1Nodejs
1Undici
Sep 4, 2026
Jun 17, 2026
N/A· v4
7.5 HIGH· v3
N/A· v2
Impact: The undici WebSocket client enforces maxPayloadSize on the cumulative byte count of fragments in a message but does not enforce a limit on the number of fragments. A malicious WebSocket server can stream many sma...Show more
Impact: The undici WebSocket client enforces maxPayloadSize on the cumulative byte count of fragments in a message but does not enforce a limit on the number of fragments. A malicious WebSocket server can stream many small or empty continuation frames that each pass per-frame and cumulative-size validation, collectively causing unbounded memory growth in the client process. The result is memory exhaustion and a denial of service. Affected applications are those using the undici WebSocket client (new WebSocket(...)) or the WebSocketStream API that can be induced to connect to an attacker-controlled or compromised WebSocket endpoint. All releases starting at undici 6.17.0 are affected. Patches: Upgrade to undici >= 6.26.0, >= 7.28.0, or >= 8.5.0. Workarounds: No workaround is available. The fix must be applied through an upgrade.Show less
1Nodejs
1Node.js
Aug 19, 2026
Mar 30, 2026
N/A· v4
5.9 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
A flaw in V8's string hashing mechanism causes integer-like strings to be hashed to their numeric value, making hash collisions trivially predictable. By crafting a request that causes many such collisions in V8's intern...Show more
A flaw in V8's string hashing mechanism causes integer-like strings to be hashed to their numeric value, making hash collisions trivially predictable. By crafting a request that causes many such collisions in V8's internal string table, an attacker can significantly degrade performance of the Node.js process. The most common trigger is any endpoint that calls `JSON.parse()` on attacker-controlled input, as JSON parsing automatically internalizes short strings into the affected hash table. This vulnerability affects **20.x, 22.x, 24.x, and 25.x**.Show less
1Nodejs
1Node.js
Aug 19, 2026
Mar 30, 2026
N/A· v4
3.3 LOW· v3
N/A· v2
An incomplete fix for CVE-2024-36137 leaves `FileHandle.chmod()` and `FileHandle.chown()` in the promises API without the required permission checks, while their callback-based equivalents (`fs.fchmod()`, `fs.fchown()`)...Show more
An incomplete fix for CVE-2024-36137 leaves `FileHandle.chmod()` and `FileHandle.chown()` in the promises API without the required permission checks, while their callback-based equivalents (`fs.fchmod()`, `fs.fchown()`) were correctly patched. As a result, code running under `--permission` with restricted `--allow-fs-write` can still use promise-based `FileHandle` methods to modify file permissions and ownership on already-open file descriptors, bypassing the intended write restrictions. This vulnerability affects **20.x, 22.x, 24.x, and 25.x** processes using the Permission Model where `--allow-fs-write` is intentionally restricted.Show less
1Nodejs
1Node.js
Aug 19, 2026
Mar 30, 2026
N/A· v4
3.3 LOW· v3
N/A· v2
A flaw in Node.js Permission Model filesystem enforcement leaves `fs.realpathSync.native()` without the required read permission checks, while all comparable filesystem functions correctly enforce them. As a result, c...Show more
A flaw in Node.js Permission Model filesystem enforcement leaves `fs.realpathSync.native()` without the required read permission checks, while all comparable filesystem functions correctly enforce them. As a result, code running under `--permission` with restricted `--allow-fs-read` can still use `fs.realpathSync.native()` to check file existence, resolve symlink targets, and enumerate filesystem paths outside of permitted directories. This vulnerability affects **20.x, 22.x, 24.x, and 25.x** processes using the Permission Model where `--allow-fs-read` is intentionally restricted.Show less
1Nodejs
1Node.js
Aug 19, 2026
Mar 30, 2026
N/A· v4
5.3 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
A memory leak occurs in Node.js HTTP/2 servers when a client sends WINDOW_UPDATE frames on stream 0 (connection-level) that cause the flow control window to exceed the maximum value of 2³¹-1. The server correctly sends a...Show more
A memory leak occurs in Node.js HTTP/2 servers when a client sends WINDOW_UPDATE frames on stream 0 (connection-level) that cause the flow control window to exceed the maximum value of 2³¹-1. The server correctly sends a GOAWAY frame, but the Http2Session object is never cleaned up. This vulnerability affects HTTP2 users on Node.js 20, 22, 24 and 25.Show less
1Nodejs
1Node.js
Aug 19, 2026
Mar 30, 2026
N/A· v4
5.9 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
A flaw in Node.js HMAC verification uses a non-constant-time comparison when validating user-provided signatures, potentially leaking timing information proportional to the number of matching bytes. Under certain threat...Show more
A flaw in Node.js HMAC verification uses a non-constant-time comparison when validating user-provided signatures, potentially leaking timing information proportional to the number of matching bytes. Under certain threat models where high-resolution timing measurements are possible, this behavior could be exploited as a timing oracle to infer HMAC values. Node.js already provides timing-safe comparison primitives used elsewhere in the codebase, indicating this is an oversight rather than an intentional design decision. This vulnerability affects **20.x, 22.x, 24.x, and 25.x**.Show less
1Nodejs
1Node.js
Aug 19, 2026
Mar 30, 2026
N/A· v4
5.3 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
A flaw in Node.js Permission Model network enforcement leaves Unix Domain Socket (UDS) server operations without the required permission checks, while all comparable network paths correctly enforce them. As a result,...Show more
A flaw in Node.js Permission Model network enforcement leaves Unix Domain Socket (UDS) server operations without the required permission checks, while all comparable network paths correctly enforce them. As a result, code running under `--permission` without `--allow-net` can create and expose local IPC endpoints, allowing communication with other processes on the same host outside of the intended network restriction boundary. This vulnerability affects Node.js **25.x** processes using the Permission Model where `--allow-net` is intentionally omitted to restrict network access. Note that `--allow-net` is currently an experimental feature.Show less
2Nodejs
Redhat
3Enterprise Linux
Enterprise Linux EusNode.js
Aug 19, 2026
Mar 30, 2026
N/A· v4
7.5 HIGH· v3
N/A· v2
A flaw in Node.js HTTP request handling causes an uncaught `TypeError` when a request is received with a header named `__proto__` and the application accesses `req.headersDistinct`. When this occurs, `dest["__proto__"...Show more
A flaw in Node.js HTTP request handling causes an uncaught `TypeError` when a request is received with a header named `__proto__` and the application accesses `req.headersDistinct`. When this occurs, `dest["__proto__"]` resolves to `Object.prototype` rather than `undefined`, causing `.push()` to be called on a non-array. This exception is thrown synchronously inside a property getter and cannot be intercepted by `error` event listeners, meaning it cannot be handled without wrapping every `req.headersDistinct` access in a `try/catch`. * This vulnerability affects all Node.js HTTP servers on **20.x, 22.x, 24.x, and v25.x**Show less
1Nodejs
1Node.js
Aug 19, 2026
Mar 30, 2026
N/A· v4
6.5 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
A flaw in Node.js URL processing causes an assertion failure in native code when `url.format()` is called with a malformed internationalized domain name (IDN) containing invalid characters, crashing the Node.js process.
1Nodejs
1Undici
Jun 17, 2026
Mar 12, 2026
N/A· v4
5.9 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
This is an uncontrolled resource consumption vulnerability (CWE-400) that can lead to Denial of Service (DoS). In vulnerable Undici versions, when interceptors.deduplicate() is enabled, response data for deduplicated re...Show more
This is an uncontrolled resource consumption vulnerability (CWE-400) that can lead to Denial of Service (DoS). In vulnerable Undici versions, when interceptors.deduplicate() is enabled, response data for deduplicated requests could be accumulated in memory for downstream handlers. An attacker-controlled or untrusted upstream endpoint can exploit this with large/chunked responses and concurrent identical requests, causing high memory usage and potential OOM process termination. Impacted users are applications that use Undici’s deduplication interceptor against endpoints that may produce large or long-lived response bodies. PatchesThe issue has been patched by changing deduplication behavior to stream response chunks to downstream handlers as they arrive (instead of full-body accumulation), and by preventing late deduplication when body streaming has already started. Users should upgrade to the first official Undici (and Node.js, where applicable) releases that include this patch.Show less
1Nodejs
1Undici
Sep 4, 2026
Mar 12, 2026
N/A· v4
7.5 HIGH· v3
N/A· v2
ImpactThe undici WebSocket client is vulnerable to a denial-of-service attack due to improper validation of the server_max_window_bits parameter in the permessage-deflate extension. When a WebSocket client connects to a...Show more
ImpactThe undici WebSocket client is vulnerable to a denial-of-service attack due to improper validation of the server_max_window_bits parameter in the permessage-deflate extension. When a WebSocket client connects to a server, it automatically advertises support for permessage-deflate compression. A malicious server can respond with an out-of-range server_max_window_bits value (outside zlib's valid range of 8-15). When the server subsequently sends a compressed frame, the client attempts to create a zlib InflateRaw instance with the invalid windowBits value, causing a synchronous RangeError exception that is not caught, resulting in immediate process termination. The vulnerability exists because: * The isValidClientWindowBits() function only validates that the value contains ASCII digits, not that it falls within the valid range 8-15 * The createInflateRaw() call is not wrapped in a try-catch block * The resulting exception propagates up through the call stack and crashes the Node.js processShow less
1Nodejs
1Undici
Sep 4, 2026
Mar 12, 2026
N/A· v4
7.5 HIGH· v3
N/A· v2
ImpactA server can reply with a WebSocket frame using the 64-bit length form and an extremely large length. undici's ByteParser overflows internal math, ends up in an invalid state, and throws a fatal TypeError that term...Show more
ImpactA server can reply with a WebSocket frame using the 64-bit length form and an extremely large length. undici's ByteParser overflows internal math, ends up in an invalid state, and throws a fatal TypeError that terminates the process. Patches Patched in the undici version v7.24.0 and v6.24.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later.Show less
1Nodejs
1Undici
Jun 17, 2026
Mar 12, 2026
N/A· v4
4.6 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
ImpactWhen an application passes user-controlled input to the upgrade option of client.request(), an attacker can inject CRLF sequences (\r\n) to: * Inject arbitrary HTTP headers * Terminate the HTTP request prema...Show more
ImpactWhen an application passes user-controlled input to the upgrade option of client.request(), an attacker can inject CRLF sequences (\r\n) to: * Inject arbitrary HTTP headers * Terminate the HTTP request prematurely and smuggle raw data to non-HTTP services (Redis, Memcached, Elasticsearch) The vulnerability exists because undici writes the upgrade value directly to the socket without validating for invalid header characters: // lib/dispatcher/client-h1.js:1121 if (upgrade) { header += `connection: upgrade\r\nupgrade: ${upgrade}\r\n` }Show less