Version Details and Security Vulnerabilities

Impact

Secrets that would normally be masked by semantic-release can be accidentally disclosed if they contain characters that become encoded when included in a URL.

Patches

Fixed in v17.2.3

Workarounds

Secrets that do not contain characters that become encoded when included in a URL are already masked properly.

follow-redirects is vulnerable to Exposure of Private Personal Information to an Unauthorized Actor

Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor in NPM follow-redirects prior to 1.14.8.

Versions of the package follow-redirects before 1.15.4 are vulnerable to Improper Input Validation due to the improper handling of URLs by the url.parse() function. When new URL() throws an error, it can be manipulated to misinterpret the hostname. An attacker could exploit this weakness to redirect traffic to a malicious site, potentially leading to information disclosure, phishing attacks, or other security breaches.

When using axios, its dependency follow-redirects only clears authorization header during cross-domain redirect, but allows the proxy-authentication header which contains credentials too.

Steps To Reproduce & PoC

Test code:

const axios = require('axios');

axios.get('http://127.0.0.1:10081/', {
 headers: {
 'AuThorization': 'Rear Test',
 'ProXy-AuthoriZation': 'Rear Test',
 'coOkie': 't=1'
 }
})
 .then((response) => {
 console.log(response);
 })

When I meet the cross-domain redirect, the sensitive headers like authorization and cookie are cleared, but proxy-authentication header is kept.

Impact

This vulnerability may lead to credentials leak.

Recommendations

Remove proxy-authentication header during cross-domain redirect

Recommended Patch

follow-redirects/index.js:464

- removeMatchingHeaders(/^(?:authorization|cookie)$/i, this._options.headers);
+ removeMatchingHeaders(/^(?:authorization|proxy-authorization|cookie)$/i, this._options.headers);

Versions of https-proxy-agent before 2.2.0 are vulnerable to denial of service. This is due to unsanitized options (proxy.auth) being passed to Buffer().

Recommendation

Update to version 2.2.0 or later.

Versions of https-proxy-agent prior to 2.2.3 are vulnerable to Machine-In-The-Middle. The package fails to enforce TLS on the socket if the proxy server responds the to the request with a HTTP status different than 200. This allows an attacker with access to the proxy server to intercept unencrypted communications, which may include sensitive information such as credentials.

Recommendation

Upgrade to version 3.0.0 or 2.2.3.

@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.