Version Details and Security Vulnerabilities

Versions of lodash before 4.17.12 are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The function defaultsDeep allows a malicious user to modify the prototype of Object via {constructor: {prototype: {...}}} causing the addition or modification of an existing property that will exist on all objects.

Recommendation

Update to version 4.17.12 or later.

Versions of lodash before 4.17.5 are vulnerable to prototype pollution.

The vulnerable functions are 'defaultsDeep', 'merge', and 'mergeWith' which allow a malicious user to modify the prototype of Object via __proto__ causing the addition or modification of an existing property that will exist on all objects.

Recommendation

Update to version 4.17.5 or later.

Versions of lodash before 4.17.11 are vulnerable to prototype pollution.

The vulnerable functions are 'defaultsDeep', 'merge', and 'mergeWith' which allow a malicious user to modify the prototype of Object via {constructor: {prototype: {...}}} causing the addition or modification of an existing property that will exist on all objects.

Recommendation

Update to version 4.17.11 or later.

lodash prior to 4.7.11 is affected by: CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption. The impact is: Denial of service. The component is: Date handler. The attack vector is: Attacker provides very long strings, which the library attempts to match using a regular expression. The fixed version is: 4.7.11.

Versions of lodash prior to 4.17.19 are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The functions pick, set, setWith, update, updateWith, and zipObjectDeep allow a malicious user to modify the prototype of Object if the property identifiers are user-supplied. Being affected by this issue requires manipulating objects based on user-provided property values or arrays.

This vulnerability causes the addition or modification of an existing property that will exist on all objects and may lead to Denial of Service or Code Execution under specific circumstances.

All versions of package lodash prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the toNumber, trim and trimEnd functions.

Steps to reproduce (provided by reporter Liyuan Chen):

var lo = require('lodash');

function build_blank(n) {
    var ret = "1"
    for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {
        ret += " "
    }
    return ret + "1";
}
var s = build_blank(50000) var time0 = Date.now();
lo.trim(s) 
var time_cost0 = Date.now() - time0;
console.log("time_cost0: " + time_cost0);
var time1 = Date.now();
lo.toNumber(s) var time_cost1 = Date.now() - time1;
console.log("time_cost1: " + time_cost1);
var time2 = Date.now();
lo.trimEnd(s);
var time_cost2 = Date.now() - time2;
console.log("time_cost2: " + time_cost2);

lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Command Injection via the template function.

The package css-what before 2.1.3 is vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) due to the use of insecure regular expression in the re_attr variable of index.js. The exploitation of this vulnerability could be triggered via the parse function.

There is a Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) vulnerability in nth-check that causes a denial of service when parsing crafted invalid CSS nth-checks.

The ReDoS vulnerabilities of the regex are mainly due to the sub-pattern \s*(?:([+-]?)\s*(\d+))? with quantified overlapping adjacency and can be exploited with the following code.

Proof of Concept

// PoC.js
var nthCheck = require("nth-check")
for(var i = 1; i <= 50000; i++) {
    var time = Date.now();
    var attack_str = '2n' + ' '.repeat(i*10000)+"!";
    try {
        nthCheck.parse(attack_str) 
    }
    catch(err) {
        var time_cost = Date.now() - time;
        console.log("attack_str.length: " + attack_str.length + ": " + time_cost+" ms")
    }
}

The Output

attack_str.length: 10003: 174 ms
attack_str.length: 20003: 1427 ms
attack_str.length: 30003: 2602 ms
attack_str.length: 40003: 4378 ms
attack_str.length: 50003: 7473 ms

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.