Version Details and Security Vulnerabilities

All versions of package merge <2.1.1 are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via _recursiveMerge .

Versions of merge before 1.2.1 are vulnerable to prototype pollution. The merge.recursive function can be tricked into adding or modifying properties of the Object prototype.

Recommendation

Update to version 1.2.1 or later.

Prototype pollution vulnerability via .parse() in Plist allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) and may lead to remote code execution.

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.

Recommendation

Upgrade to versions 0.2.1, 1.2.3 or later.

Minimist prior to 1.2.6 and 0.2.4 is vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via file index.js, function setKey() (lines 69-95).

Versions of ecstatic prior to 4.1.2, 3.3.2 or 2.2.2 are vulnerable to Open Redirect. The package fails to validate redirects, allowing attackers to craft requests that result in an HTTP 301 redirect to any other domains.

Recommendation

If using ecstatic 4.x, upgrade to 4.1.2 or later. If using ecstatic 3.x, upgrade to 3.3.2 or later. If using ecstatic 2.x, upgrade to 2.2.2 or later.

ecstatic have a denial of service vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to crash of an application.

ecstatic, a simple static file server middleware, is vulnerable to denial of service. If a payload with a large number of null bytes (%00) is provided by an attacker it can crash ecstatic by running it out of memory.

Results from the original advisory

A payload of 22kB caused a lag of 1 second,
A payload of 35kB caused a lag of 3 seconds,
A payload of 86kB caused the server to crash

Recommendation

Update to version 2.0.0 or later.

Versions of ecstatic prior to 1.4.0 are affected by a denial of service vulnerability when certain input strings are sent via the Last-Modified or If-Modified-Since headers.

Parsing certain inputs with new Date() or Date.parse() cases v8 to crash. As ecstatic passes the value of the affected headers into one of these functions, sending certain inputs via one of the headers will cause the server to crash.

Recommendation

Update to version 1.4.0 or later.

@rkesters/gnuplot is an easy to use node module to draw charts using gnuplot and ps2pdf. The trim-newlines package before 3.0.1 and 4.x before 4.0.1 for Node.js has an issue related to regular expression denial-of-service (ReDoS) for the .end() method.

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.

Summary

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:

1. can observe other values produced by Math.random in the target application, and
2. can control one field of a request made using form-data

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.

Details

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

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).

Impact

For an application to be vulnerable, it must:

• Use 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)
• Reveal values of Math.random(). It's easiest if the attacker can observe multiple sequential values, but more complex math could recover the PRNG state to some degree of confidence with non-sequential values.

If an application is vulnerable, this allows an attacker to make arbitrary requests to internal systems.

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.