Ts-jest 0.1.10 represents a minor update over version 0.1.9, refining the developer experience when using TypeScript with Jest. Both versions serve as preprocessors, enabling seamless integration of TypeScript code within Jest testing environments, complete with sourcemap support for easier debugging. Key dependencies like typescript, yargs, glob-all, lodash.assign, remap-istanbul, lodash.partition, and source-map-support remain consistent, ensuring core functionality isn't disrupted. jest and related testing libraries are also common to both, as are developer tooling dependencies like doctoc, rimraf, and tslint.
The notable change lies in the updated internal management of Jest components. Version 0.1.10 bumps jest-util from 16.0.0 to 16.0.2 and introduces a new dependency, jest-config at version 16.0.2. These specific updates within the jest ecosystem provides developers with more robust and consistent handling of Jest configurations and utilities facilitating smoother testing workflows. The addition of istanbul-lib-instrument"^1.2.0" as a dependency provides enhanced code coverage reporting capabilities, allowing developers to gain deeper insights into the effectiveness of their tests.
For developers using ts-jest, this update signifies improved integration with the Jest testing framework, and potentially offering enhanced configuration options and more accurate code coverage data. The upgrade is likely a low-risk update, offering benefits in terms of stability and reporting capabilities without requiring significant code changes.
All the vulnerabilities related to the version 0.1.10 of the package
yargs-parser Vulnerable to Prototype Pollution
Affected versions of yargs-parser
are vulnerable to prototype pollution. Arguments are not properly sanitized, allowing an attacker to modify the prototype of Object
, causing the addition or modification of an existing property that will exist on all objects.
Parsing the argument --foo.__proto__.bar baz'
adds a bar
property with value baz
to all objects. This is only exploitable if attackers have control over the arguments being passed to yargs-parser
.
Upgrade to versions 13.1.2, 15.0.1, 18.1.1 or later.
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.
Uncontrolled Resource Consumption in trim-newlines
@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.
Command Injection in lodash
lodash
versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Command Injection via the template function.
Babel vulnerable to arbitrary code execution when compiling specifically crafted malicious code
Using Babel to compile code that was specifically crafted by an attacker can lead to arbitrary code execution during compilation, when using plugins that rely on the path.evaluate()
or path.evaluateTruthy()
internal Babel methods.
Known affected plugins are:
@babel/plugin-transform-runtime
@babel/preset-env
when using its useBuiltIns
option@babel/helper-define-polyfill-provider
, such as babel-plugin-polyfill-corejs3
, babel-plugin-polyfill-corejs2
, babel-plugin-polyfill-es-shims
, babel-plugin-polyfill-regenerator
No other plugins under the @babel/
namespace are impacted, but third-party plugins might be.
Users that only compile trusted code are not impacted.
The vulnerability has been fixed in @babel/traverse@7.23.2
.
Babel 6 does not receive security fixes anymore (see Babel's security policy), hence there is no patch planned for babel-traverse@6
.
@babel/traverse
to v7.23.2 or higher. You can do this by deleting it from your package manager's lockfile and re-installing the dependencies. @babel/core
>=7.23.2 will automatically pull in a non-vulnerable version.@babel/traverse
and are using one of the affected packages mentioned above, upgrade them to their latest version to avoid triggering the vulnerable code path in affected @babel/traverse
versions:
@babel/plugin-transform-runtime
v7.23.2@babel/preset-env
v7.23.2@babel/helper-define-polyfill-provider
v0.4.3babel-plugin-polyfill-corejs2
v0.4.6babel-plugin-polyfill-corejs3
v0.8.5babel-plugin-polyfill-es-shims
v0.10.0babel-plugin-polyfill-regenerator
v0.5.3