All the vulnerabilities related to the version 2.0.16 of the package
Exposure of sensitive information in follow-redirects
follow-redirects is vulnerable to Exposure of Private Personal Information to an Unauthorized Actor
follow-redirects' Proxy-Authorization header kept across hosts
When using axios, its dependency follow-redirects only clears authorization header during cross-domain redirect, but allows the proxy-authentication header which contains credentials too.
Test code:
const axios = require('axios');
axios.get('http://127.0.0.1:10081/', {
headers: {
'AuThorization': 'Rear Test',
'ProXy-AuthoriZation': 'Rear Test',
'coOkie': 't=1'
}
})
.then((response) => {
console.log(response);
})
When I meet the cross-domain redirect, the sensitive headers like authorization and cookie are cleared, but proxy-authentication header is kept.
This vulnerability may lead to credentials leak.
Remove proxy-authentication header during cross-domain redirect
- removeMatchingHeaders(/^(?:authorization|cookie)$/i, this._options.headers);
+ removeMatchingHeaders(/^(?:authorization|proxy-authorization|cookie)$/i, this._options.headers);
Follow Redirects improperly handles URLs in the url.parse() function
Versions of the package follow-redirects before 1.15.4 are vulnerable to Improper Input Validation due to the improper handling of URLs by the url.parse() function. When new URL() throws an error, it can be manipulated to misinterpret the hostname. An attacker could exploit this weakness to redirect traffic to a malicious site, potentially leading to information disclosure, phishing attacks, or other security breaches.
Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor in follow-redirects
Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor in NPM follow-redirects prior to 1.14.8.
Denial of Service in https-proxy-agent
Versions of https-proxy-agent before 2.2.0 are vulnerable to denial of service. This is due to unsanitized options (proxy.auth) being passed to Buffer().
Update to version 2.2.0 or later.
Machine-In-The-Middle in https-proxy-agent
Versions of https-proxy-agent prior to 2.2.3 are vulnerable to Machine-In-The-Middle. The package fails to enforce TLS on the socket if the proxy server responds the to the request with a HTTP status different than 200. This allows an attacker with access to the proxy server to intercept unencrypted communications, which may include sensitive information such as credentials.
Upgrade to version 3.0.0 or 2.2.3.
Improper Privilege Management in shelljs
shelljs is vulnerable to Improper Privilege Management
Improper Privilege Management in shelljs
Output from the synchronous version of shell.exec() may be visible to other users on the same system. You may be affected if you execute shell.exec() in multi-user Mac, Linux, or WSL environments, or if you execute shell.exec() as the root user.
Other shelljs functions (including the asynchronous version of shell.exec()) are not impacted.
Patched in shelljs 0.8.5
Recommended action is to upgrade to 0.8.5.
https://huntr.dev/bounties/50996581-c08e-4eed-a90e-c0bac082679c/
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:
superagent vulnerable to zip bomb attacks
Affected versions of superagent do not check the post-decompression size of ZIP compressed HTTP responses prior to decompressing. This results in the package being vulnerable to a ZIP bomb attack, where an extremely small ZIP file becomes many orders of magnitude larger when decompressed.
This may result in unrestrained CPU/Memory/Disk consumption, causing a denial of service condition.
Update to version 3.7.0 or later.
cookiejar Regular Expression Denial of Service via Cookie.parse function
Versions of the package cookiejar before 2.1.4 are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the Cookie.parse function and other aspects of the API, which use an insecure regular expression for parsing cookie values. Applications could be stalled for extended periods of time if untrusted input is passed to cookie values or attempted to parse from request headers.
Proof of concept:
ts\nconst { CookieJar } = require("cookiejar");
const jar = new CookieJar();
const start = performance.now();
const attack = "a" + "t".repeat(50_000);
jar.setCookie(attack);
console.log(`CookieJar.setCookie(): ${performance.now() - start}ms`);
CookieJar.setCookie(): 2963.214399999939ms
node-static and @nubosoftware/node-static vulnerable to Directory Traversal
node-static and its fork, @nubosoftware/node-static, are vulnerable to Directory Traversal due to improper file path sanitization in the startsWith() method in the servePath function.
Denial of Service in node-static
All versions of node-static are vulnerable to a Denial of Service. The package fails to catch an exception when user input includes null bytes. This allows attackers to access http://host/%00 and crash the server.
Prototype Pollution in minimist
Affected versions of minimist are vulnerable to prototype pollution. Arguments are not properly sanitized, allowing an attacker to modify the prototype of Object, causing the addition or modification of an existing property that will exist on all objects.
Parsing the argument --__proto__.y=Polluted adds a y property with value Polluted to all objects. The argument --__proto__=Polluted raises and uncaught error and crashes the application.
This is exploitable if attackers have control over the arguments being passed to minimist.
Upgrade to versions 0.2.1, 1.2.3 or later.
Prototype Pollution in minimist
Minimist prior to 1.2.6 and 0.2.4 is vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via file index.js, function setKey() (lines 69-95).
Server-Side Request Forgery in Request
The request package through 2.88.2 for Node.js and the @cypress/request package prior to 3.0.0 allow a bypass of SSRF mitigations via an attacker-controller server that does a cross-protocol redirect (HTTP to HTTPS, or HTTPS to HTTP).
NOTE: The request package is no longer supported by the maintainer.
form-data uses unsafe random function in form-data for choosing boundary
form-data uses Math.random() to select a boundary value for multipart form-encoded data. This can lead to a security issue if an attacker:
Because the values of Math.random() are pseudo-random and predictable (see: https://blog.securityevaluators.com/hacking-the-javascript-lottery-80cc437e3b7f), an attacker who can observe a few sequential values can determine the state of the PRNG and predict future values, includes those used to generate form-data's boundary value. The allows the attacker to craft a value that contains a boundary value, allowing them to inject additional parameters into the request.
This is largely the same vulnerability as was recently found in undici by parrot409 -- I'm not affiliated with that researcher but want to give credit where credit is due! My PoC is largely based on their work.
The culprit is this line here: https://github.com/form-data/form-data/blob/426ba9ac440f95d1998dac9a5cd8d738043b048f/lib/form_data.js#L347
An attacker who is able to predict the output of Math.random() can predict this boundary value, and craft a payload that contains the boundary value, followed by another, fully attacker-controlled field. This is roughly equivalent to any sort of improper escaping vulnerability, with the caveat that the attacker must find a way to observe other Math.random() values generated by the application to solve for the state of the PRNG. However, Math.random() is used in all sorts of places that might be visible to an attacker (including by form-data itself, if the attacker can arrange for the vulnerable application to make a request to an attacker-controlled server using form-data, such as a user-controlled webhook -- the attacker could observe the boundary values from those requests to observe the Math.random() outputs). A common example would be a x-request-id header added by the server. These sorts of headers are often used for distributed tracing, to correlate errors across the frontend and backend. Math.random() is a fine place to get these sorts of IDs (in fact, opentelemetry uses Math.random for this purpose)
PoC here: https://github.com/benweissmann/CVE-2025-7783-poc
Instructions are in that repo. It's based on the PoC from https://hackerone.com/reports/2913312 but simplified somewhat; the vulnerable application has a more direct side-channel from which to observe Math.random() values (a separate endpoint that happens to include a randomly-generated request ID).
For an application to be vulnerable, it must:
form-data to send data including user-controlled data to some other system. The attacker must be able to do something malicious by adding extra parameters (that were not intended to be user-controlled) to this request. Depending on the target system's handling of repeated parameters, the attacker might be able to overwrite values in addition to appending values (some multipart form handlers deal with repeats by overwriting values instead of representing them as an array)If an application is vulnerable, this allows an attacker to make arbitrary requests to internal systems.
tough-cookie Prototype Pollution vulnerability
Versions of the package tough-cookie before 4.1.3 are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution due to improper handling of Cookies when using CookieJar in rejectPublicSuffixes=false mode. This issue arises from the manner in which the objects are initialized.