Version Details and Security Vulnerabilities

A vulnerability exists in Async through 3.2.1 for 3.x and through 2.6.3 for 2.x (fixed in 3.2.2 and 2.6.4), which could let a malicious user obtain privileges via the mapValues() method.

An issue was discovered in PostCSS before 8.4.31. It affects linters using PostCSS to parse external Cascading Style Sheets (CSS). There may be \r discrepancies, as demonstrated by @font-face{ font:(\r/*);} in a rule.

This vulnerability affects linters using PostCSS to parse external untrusted CSS. An attacker can prepare CSS in such a way that it will contains parts parsed by PostCSS as a CSS comment. After processing by PostCSS, it will be included in the PostCSS output in CSS nodes (rules, properties) despite being originally included in a comment.

Affected versions of debug are vulnerable to regular expression denial of service when untrusted user input is passed into the o formatter.

As it takes 50,000 characters to block the event loop for 2 seconds, this issue is a low severity issue.

This was later re-introduced in version v3.2.0, and then repatched in versions 3.2.7 and 4.3.1.

Recommendation

Version 2.x.x: Update to version 2.6.9 or later. Version 3.1.x: Update to version 3.1.0 or later. Version 3.2.x: Update to version 3.2.7 or later. Version 4.x.x: Update to version 4.3.1 or later.

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

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).

Impact

What kind of vulnerability is it?

Denial of service.

The regular expression inline.reflinkSearch may cause catastrophic backtracking against some strings. PoC is the following.

import * as marked from 'marked';

console.log(marked.parse(`[x]: x

\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](`));

Who is impacted?

Anyone who runs untrusted markdown through marked and does not use a worker with a time limit.

Patches

Has the problem been patched?

Yes

What versions should users upgrade to?

4.0.10

Workarounds

Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?

Do not run untrusted markdown through marked or run marked on a worker thread and set a reasonable time limit to prevent draining resources.

References

Are there any links users can visit to find out more?

• https://marked.js.org/using_advanced#workers
• https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/Regular_expression_Denial_of_Service_-_ReDoS

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

• Open an issue in marked

Impact

What kind of vulnerability is it?

Denial of service.

The regular expression block.def may cause catastrophic backtracking against some strings. PoC is the following.

import * as marked from "marked";

marked.parse(`[x]:${' '.repeat(1500)}x ${' '.repeat(1500)} x`);

Who is impacted?

Anyone who runs untrusted markdown through marked and does not use a worker with a time limit.

Patches

Has the problem been patched?

Yes

What versions should users upgrade to?

4.0.10

Workarounds

Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?

Do not run untrusted markdown through marked or run marked on a worker thread and set a reasonable time limit to prevent draining resources.

References

Are there any links users can visit to find out more?

• https://marked.js.org/using_advanced#workers
• https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/Regular_expression_Denial_of_Service_-_ReDoS

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

• Open an issue in marked

When nanoid is called with a fractional value, there were a number of undesirable effects:

1. in browser and non-secure, the code infinite loops on while (size--)
2. in node, the value of poolOffset becomes fractional, causing calls to nanoid to return zeroes until the pool is next filled
3. if the first call in node is a fractional argument, the initial buffer allocation fails with an error

Version 3.3.8 and 5.0.9 are fixed.

The package nanoid from 3.0.0, before 3.1.31, are vulnerable to Information Exposure via the valueOf() function which allows to reproduce the last id generated.

Prototype pollution vulnerability in tschaub gh-pages via the partial variable in util.js.

All versions of package lodash prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the toNumber, trim and trimEnd functions.

Steps to reproduce (provided by reporter Liyuan Chen):

var lo = require('lodash');

function build_blank(n) {
    var ret = "1"
    for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {
        ret += " "
    }
    return ret + "1";
}
var s = build_blank(50000) var time0 = Date.now();
lo.trim(s) 
var time_cost0 = Date.now() - time0;
console.log("time_cost0: " + time_cost0);
var time1 = Date.now();
lo.toNumber(s) var time_cost1 = Date.now() - time1;
console.log("time_cost1: " + time_cost1);
var time2 = Date.now();
lo.trimEnd(s);
var time_cost2 = Date.now() - time2;
console.log("time_cost2: " + time_cost2);

lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Command Injection via the template function.

hoek versions prior to 8.5.1, and 9.x prior to 9.0.3 are vulnerable to prototype pollution in the clone function. If an object with the proto key is passed to clone() the key is converted to a prototype. This issue has been patched in version 9.0.3, and backported to 8.5.1.

Versions of hoek prior to 4.2.1 and 5.0.3 are vulnerable to prototype pollution.

The merge function, and the applyToDefaults and applyToDefaultsWithShallow functions which leverage merge behind the scenes, are vulnerable to a prototype pollution attack when provided an unvalidated payload created from a JSON string containing the __proto__ property.

This can be demonstrated like so:

var Hoek = require('hoek');
var malicious_payload = '{"__proto__":{"oops":"It works !"}}';

var a = {};
console.log("Before : " + a.oops);
Hoek.merge({}, JSON.parse(malicious_payload));
console.log("After : " + a.oops);

This type of attack can be used to overwrite existing properties causing a potential denial of service.

Recommendation

Update to version 4.2.1, 5.0.3 or later.

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.

Hawk is an HTTP authentication scheme providing mechanisms for making authenticated HTTP requests with partial cryptographic verification of the request and response, covering the HTTP method, request URI, host, and optionally the request payload. Hawk used a regular expression to parse Host HTTP header (Hawk.utils.parseHost()), which was subject to regular expression DoS attack - meaning each added character in the attacker's input increases the computation time exponentially. parseHost() was patched in 9.0.1 to use built-in URL class to parse hostname instead.Hawk.authenticate() accepts options argument. If that contains host and port, those would be used instead of a call to utils.parseHost().

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.

An issue was discovered in ajv.validate() in Ajv (aka Another JSON Schema Validator) 6.12.2. A carefully crafted JSON schema could be provided that allows execution of other code by prototype pollution. (While untrusted schemas are recommended against, the worst case of an untrusted schema should be a denial of service, not execution of code.)

A vulnerability was found in the minimatch package. This flaw allows a Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) when calling the braceExpand function with specific arguments, resulting in a Denial of Service.

Minimist prior to 1.2.6 and 0.2.4 is vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via file index.js, function setKey() (lines 69-95).