Jsdom version 16.5.0 introduces several updates and refinements compared to its predecessor, version 16.4.0, making it a worthwhile upgrade for developers relying on a JavaScript implementation of web standards. From a dependency perspective, significant changes include updates to ws (from ^7.2.3 to ^7.4.4), abab (from ^2.0.3 to ^2.0.5), acorn (from ^7.1.1 to ^8.0.5), parse5 (from 5.1.1 to 6.0.1), cssstyle (from ^2.2.0 to ^2.3.0), decimal.js (from ^10.2.0 to ^10.2.1), and tough-cookie (from ^3.0.1 to ^4.0.0). These dependency bumps likely bring performance improvements, bug fixes, and enhanced compatibility with evolving web technologies. The upgrade of acorn to version 8.0.5 is particularly notable, offering support for newer JavaScript syntax features. Parse5 moving to version 6.0.1 indicates improvements in HTML parsing fidelity and standardization.
Furthermore, the development dependencies have been modernized, most notably, chai (from ^4.2.0 to ^4.3.3), karma (from ^4.4.1 to ^6.1.1), mocha (from ^7.1.1 to ^8.3.1), and eslint (from ^6.8.0 to ^7.21.0). These changes enhances the testing and linting environment, improving code quality and developer experience. The addition of eslint-plugin-jsdom-internal as a linked dependency means refined internal linting rules specific for jsdom development. The core functionality remains consistent, serving as a reliable headless browser environment for testing and server-side rendering, but these updates ensure that jsdom is leveraging the latest tools and libraries to provide a more robust and standards-compliant experience. The increase in unpacked size from 2701282 to 2893853 reflects added features and improved code, likely optimizing performance and expanding available APIs.
All the vulnerabilities related to the version 16.5.0 of the package
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.