Jsdom versions 9.8.2 and 9.8.1 are minor releases of a JavaScript implementation of the DOM and HTML standards, frequently used for server-side testing and manipulation of web content. Examining both versions reveals subtle differences that, while seemingly small, could hold significance for developers relying on jsdom's accurate rendering and interaction with web pages.
The core dependencies listed appear identical, suggesting that no fundamental shifts in the underlying parsing or styling engines occurred between releases. Both leverage libraries like parse5 for HTML parsing, cssom and cssstyle for CSS processing, and request for fetching external resources. The whatwg-url and whatwg-encoding packages ensure compliance with web standards for URL handling and character encoding.
Examining the devDependencies section shows a similar story. These are tools used for developing and testing jsdom itself, such as testing frameworks like mocha and karma, linting tools like eslint, and browser automation tools such as selenium-standalone which appear in both versions. The fact that these development dependencies are static suggests that the core development and testing workflow has remained consistent between the two versions.
The primary distinguishing factor between the two versions is the releaseDate. Version 9.8.2 was released shortly after 9.8.1. Given the identical dependencies and development dependencies, it is therefore likely to include bug fixes or minor improvements, such as addressing edge cases in HTML parsing, CSS styling, or JavaScript execution within the simulated DOM environment. Developers are encouraged to upgrade in order to benefit from any such fixes. As a very short-lived release, it is very likely to have received immediate attention from the maintainers.
All the vulnerabilities related to the version 9.8.2 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.
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.