| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| In nghttp2 before version 1.41.0, the overly large HTTP/2 SETTINGS frame payload causes denial of service. The proof of concept attack involves a malicious client constructing a SETTINGS frame with a length of 14,400 bytes (2400 individual settings entries) over and over again. The attack causes the CPU to spike at 100%. nghttp2 v1.41.0 fixes this vulnerability. There is a workaround to this vulnerability. Implement nghttp2_on_frame_recv_callback callback, and if received frame is SETTINGS frame and the number of settings entries are large (e.g., > 32), then drop the connection. |
| A privilege escalation vulnerability exists in Node.js 20 that allowed loading arbitrary OpenSSL engines when the experimental permission model is enabled, which can bypass and/or disable the permission model. The attack complexity is high. However, the crypto.setEngine() API can be used to bypass the permission model when called with a compatible OpenSSL engine. The OpenSSL engine can, for example, disable the permission model in the host process by manipulating the process's stack memory to locate the permission model Permission::enabled_ in the host process's heap memory. Please note that at the time this CVE was issued, the permission model is an experimental feature of Node.js. |
| A privilege escalation vulnerability exists in Node.js <19.6.1, <18.14.1, <16.19.1 and <14.21.3 that made it possible to bypass the experimental Permissions (https://nodejs.org/api/permissions.html) feature in Node.js and access non authorized modules by using process.mainModule.require(). This only affects users who had enabled the experimental permissions option with --experimental-policy. |
| The use of `module.constructor.createRequire()` can bypass the policy mechanism and require modules outside of the policy.json definition for a given module.
This vulnerability affects all users using the experimental policy mechanism in all active release lines: 16.x, 18.x, and, 20.x.
Please note that at the time this CVE was issued, the policy is an experimental feature of Node.js. |
| A vulnerability has been discovered in Node.js version 20, specifically within the experimental permission model. This flaw relates to improper handling of Buffers in file system APIs causing a traversal path to bypass when verifying file permissions.
This vulnerability affects all users using the experimental permission model in Node.js 20.
Please note that at the time this CVE was issued, the permission model is an experimental feature of Node.js. |
| A vulnerability has been identified in Node.js version 20, affecting users of the experimental permission model when the --allow-fs-read flag is used with a non-* argument.
This flaw arises from an inadequate permission model that fails to restrict file stats through the `fs.statfs` API. As a result, malicious actors can retrieve stats from files that they do not have explicit read access to.
This vulnerability affects all users using the experimental permission model in Node.js 20.
Please note that at the time this CVE was issued, the permission model is an experimental feature of Node.js. |
| The permission model protects itself against path traversal attacks by calling path.resolve() on any paths given by the user. If the path is to be treated as a Buffer, the implementation uses Buffer.from() to obtain a Buffer from the result of path.resolve(). By monkey-patching Buffer internals, namely, Buffer.prototype.utf8Write, the application can modify the result of path.resolve(), which leads to a path traversal vulnerability.
This vulnerability affects all users using the experimental permission model in Node.js 20 and Node.js 21.
Please note that at the time this CVE was issued, the permission model is an experimental feature of Node.js. |
| On Linux, Node.js ignores certain environment variables if those may have been set by an unprivileged user while the process is running with elevated privileges with the only exception of CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE.
Due to a bug in the implementation of this exception, Node.js incorrectly applies this exception even when certain other capabilities have been set.
This allows unprivileged users to inject code that inherits the process's elevated privileges. |
| The Node.js Permission Model does not clarify in the documentation that wildcards should be only used as the last character of a file path. For example:
```
--allow-fs-read=/home/node/.ssh/*.pub
```
will ignore `pub` and give access to everything after `.ssh/`.
This misleading documentation affects all users using the experimental permission model in Node.js 20 and Node.js 21.
Please note that at the time this CVE was issued, the permission model is an experimental feature of Node.js. |
| Node.js depends on multiple built-in utility functions to normalize paths provided to node:fs functions, which can be overwitten with user-defined implementations leading to filesystem permission model bypass through path traversal attack.
This vulnerability affects all users using the experimental permission model in Node.js 20 and Node.js 21.
Please note that at the time this CVE was issued, the permission model is an experimental feature of Node.js. |
| The use of the deprecated API `process.binding()` can bypass the permission model through path traversal.
This vulnerability affects all users using the experimental permission model in Node.js 20.x.
Please note that at the time this CVE was issued, the permission model is an experimental feature of Node.js. |
| The llhttp parser in the http module in Node v18.7.0 does not correctly handle header fields that are not terminated with CLRF. This may result in HTTP Request Smuggling. |
| A cryptographic vulnerability exists on Node.js on linux in versions of 18.x prior to 18.40.0 which allowed a default path for openssl.cnf that might be accessible under some circumstances to a non-admin user instead of /etc/ssl as was the case in versions prior to the upgrade to OpenSSL 3. |
| Node.js is vulnerable to Hijack Execution Flow: DLL Hijacking under certain conditions on Windows platforms.This vulnerability can be exploited if the victim has the following dependencies on a Windows machine:* OpenSSL has been installed and “C:\Program Files\Common Files\SSL\openssl.cnf” exists.Whenever the above conditions are present, `node.exe` will search for `providers.dll` in the current user directory.After that, `node.exe` will try to search for `providers.dll` by the DLL Search Order in Windows.It is possible for an attacker to place the malicious file `providers.dll` under a variety of paths and exploit this vulnerability. |
| The llhttp parser <v14.20.1, <v16.17.1 and <v18.9.1 in the http module in Node.js does not correctly parse and validate Transfer-Encoding headers and can lead to HTTP Request Smuggling (HRS). |
| A OS Command Injection vulnerability exists in Node.js versions <14.20.0, <16.20.0, <18.5.0 due to an insufficient IsAllowedHost check that can easily be bypassed because IsIPAddress does not properly check if an IP address is invalid before making DBS requests allowing rebinding attacks. |
| The llhttp parser <v14.20.1, <v16.17.1 and <v18.9.1 in the http module in Node.js does not strictly use the CRLF sequence to delimit HTTP requests. This can lead to HTTP Request Smuggling (HRS). |
| The llhttp parser <v14.20.1, <v16.17.1 and <v18.9.1 in the http module in Node.js does not correctly handle multi-line Transfer-Encoding headers. This can lead to HTTP Request Smuggling (HRS). |
| Due to the formatting logic of the "console.table()" function it was not safe to allow user controlled input to be passed to the "properties" parameter while simultaneously passing a plain object with at least one property as the first parameter, which could be "__proto__". The prototype pollution has very limited control, in that it only allows an empty string to be assigned to numerical keys of the object prototype.Node.js >= 12.22.9, >= 14.18.3, >= 16.13.2, and >= 17.3.1 use a null protoype for the object these properties are being assigned to. |
| Node.js < 12.22.9, < 14.18.3, < 16.13.2, and < 17.3.1 did not handle multi-value Relative Distinguished Names correctly. Attackers could craft certificate subjects containing a single-value Relative Distinguished Name that would be interpreted as a multi-value Relative Distinguished Name, for example, in order to inject a Common Name that would allow bypassing the certificate subject verification.Affected versions of Node.js that do not accept multi-value Relative Distinguished Names and are thus not vulnerable to such attacks themselves. However, third-party code that uses node's ambiguous presentation of certificate subjects may be vulnerable. |
