Version Details and Security Vulnerabilities

Versions of loopback prior to 3.26.0 (3.x) and 2.42.0 (2.x) are vulnerable to Sensitive Data Exposure. Invalid API requests to the login endpoint may return information about the first user in the database. This can be used alongside other attacks for credential theft.

Recommendation

If you're using loopback 3.x upgrade to version 3.26.0 or later. If you're using loopback 2.x upgrade to version 2.42.0 or later.

The ejs (aka Embedded JavaScript templates) package 3.1.6 for Node.js allows server-side template injection in settings[view options][outputFunctionName]. This is parsed as an internal option, and overwrites the outputFunctionName option with an arbitrary OS command (which is executed upon template compilation).

The ejs (aka Embedded JavaScript templates) package before 3.1.10 for Node.js lacks certain pollution protection.

This affects the package nodemailer before 6.4.16. Use of crafted recipient email addresses may result in arbitrary command flag injection in sendmail transport for sending mails.

The package nodemailer before 6.6.1 are vulnerable to HTTP Header Injection if unsanitized user input that may contain newlines and carriage returns is passed into an address object.

Summary

A ReDoS vulnerability occurs when nodemailer tries to parse img files with the parameter attachDataUrls set, causing the stuck of event loop. Another flaw was found when nodemailer tries to parse an attachments with a embedded file, causing the stuck of event loop.

Details

Regex: /^data:((?:[^;];)(?:[^,])),(.)$/

Path: compile -> getAttachments -> _processDataUrl

Regex: /(<img\b[^>]* src\s*=[\s"']*)(data:([^;]+);[^"'>\s]+)/

Path: _convertDataImages

PoC

https://gist.github.com/francoatmega/890dd5053375333e40c6fdbcc8c58df6 https://gist.github.com/francoatmega/9aab042b0b24968d7b7039818e8b2698

async function exploit() {
   const MailComposer = require(\"nodemailer/lib/mail-composer\");
   const MailComposerObject = new MailComposer();

   // Create a malicious data URL that will cause excessive backtracking
   // This data URL is crafted to have a long sequence of characters that will cause the regex to backtrack
   const maliciousDataUrl = 'data:image/png;base64,' + 'A;B;C;D;E;F;G;H;I;J;K;L;M;N;O;P;Q;R;S;T;U;V;W;X;Y;Z;'.repeat(1000) + '==';

   // Call the vulnerable method with the crafted input
   const result = await MailComposerObject._processDataUrl({ path: maliciousDataUrl });
}

await exploit();

Impact

ReDoS causes the event loop to stuck a specially crafted evil email can cause this problem.

xml2js versions before 0.5.0 allows an external attacker to edit or add new properties to an object. This is possible because the application does not properly validate incoming JSON keys, thus allowing the __proto__ property to be edited.

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.

The package underscore from 1.13.0-0 and before 1.13.0-2, from 1.3.2 and before 1.12.1 are vulnerable to Arbitrary Code Execution via the template function, particularly when a variable property is passed as an argument as it is not sanitized.