Filtered by vendor Nodejs
Subscribe
Total
161 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2023-23920 | 2 Debian, Nodejs | 2 Debian Linux, Node.js | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 4.2 MEDIUM |
| An untrusted search path vulnerability exists in Node.js. <19.6.1, <18.14.1, <16.19.1, and <14.21.3 that could allow an attacker to search and potentially load ICU data when running with elevated privileges. | |||||
| CVE-2023-23919 | 1 Nodejs | 1 Node.js | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| A cryptographic vulnerability exists in Node.js <19.2.0, <18.14.1, <16.19.1, <14.21.3 that in some cases did does not clear the OpenSSL error stack after operations that may set it. This may lead to false positive errors during subsequent cryptographic operations that happen to be on the same thread. This in turn could be used to cause a denial of service. | |||||
| CVE-2023-23918 | 1 Nodejs | 1 Node.js | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| 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. | |||||
| CVE-2022-43548 | 2 Debian, Nodejs | 2 Debian Linux, Node.js | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 8.1 HIGH |
| A OS Command Injection vulnerability exists in Node.js versions <14.21.1, <16.18.1, <18.12.1, <19.0.1 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 fix for this issue in https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2022-32212 was incomplete and this new CVE is to complete the fix. | |||||
| CVE-2022-3786 | 3 Fedoraproject, Nodejs, Openssl | 3 Fedora, Node.js, Openssl | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| A buffer overrun can be triggered in X.509 certificate verification, specifically in name constraint checking. Note that this occurs after certificate chain signature verification and requires either a CA to have signed a malicious certificate or for an application to continue certificate verification despite failure to construct a path to a trusted issuer. An attacker can craft a malicious email address in a certificate to overflow an arbitrary number of bytes containing the `.' character (decimal 46) on the stack. This buffer overflow could result in a crash (causing a denial of service). In a TLS client, this can be triggered by connecting to a malicious server. In a TLS server, this can be triggered if the server requests client authentication and a malicious client connects. | |||||
| CVE-2022-3602 | 4 Fedoraproject, Netapp, Nodejs and 1 more | 4 Fedora, Clustered Data Ontap, Node.js and 1 more | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| A buffer overrun can be triggered in X.509 certificate verification, specifically in name constraint checking. Note that this occurs after certificate chain signature verification and requires either a CA to have signed the malicious certificate or for the application to continue certificate verification despite failure to construct a path to a trusted issuer. An attacker can craft a malicious email address to overflow four attacker-controlled bytes on the stack. This buffer overflow could result in a crash (causing a denial of service) or potentially remote code execution. Many platforms implement stack overflow protections which would mitigate against the risk of remote code execution. The risk may be further mitigated based on stack layout for any given platform/compiler. Pre-announcements of CVE-2022-3602 described this issue as CRITICAL. Further analysis based on some of the mitigating factors described above have led this to be downgraded to HIGH. Users are still encouraged to upgrade to a new version as soon as possible. In a TLS client, this can be triggered by connecting to a malicious server. In a TLS server, this can be triggered if the server requests client authentication and a malicious client connects. Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.7 (Affected 3.0.0,3.0.1,3.0.2,3.0.3,3.0.4,3.0.5,3.0.6). | |||||
| CVE-2022-36046 | 2 Nodejs, Vercel | 2 Node.js, Next.js | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| Next.js is a React framework that can provide building blocks to create web applications. All of the following must be true to be affected by this CVE: Next.js version 12.2.3, Node.js version above v15.0.0 being used with strict `unhandledRejection` exiting AND using next start or a [custom server](https://nextjs.org/docs/advanced-features/custom-server). Deployments on Vercel ([vercel.com](https://vercel.com/)) are not affected along with similar environments where `next-server` isn't being shared across requests. | |||||
| CVE-2022-35949 | 1 Nodejs | 1 Undici | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`undici` is vulnerable to SSRF (Server-side Request Forgery) when an application takes in **user input** into the `path/pathname` option of `undici.request`. If a user specifies a URL such as `http://127.0.0.1` or `//127.0.0.1` ```js const undici = require("undici") undici.request({origin: "http://example.com", pathname: "//127.0.0.1"}) ``` Instead of processing the request as `http://example.org//127.0.0.1` (or `http://example.org/http://127.0.0.1` when `http://127.0.0.1 is used`), it actually processes the request as `http://127.0.0.1/` and sends it to `http://127.0.0.1`. If a developer passes in user input into `path` parameter of `undici.request`, it can result in an _SSRF_ as they will assume that the hostname cannot change, when in actual fact it can change because the specified path parameter is combined with the base URL. This issue was fixed in `undici@5.8.1`. The best workaround is to validate user input before passing it to the `undici.request` call. | |||||
| CVE-2022-35948 | 1 Nodejs | 1 Undici | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`=< undici@5.8.0` users are vulnerable to _CRLF Injection_ on headers when using unsanitized input as request headers, more specifically, inside the `content-type` header. Example: ``` import { request } from 'undici' const unsanitizedContentTypeInput = 'application/json\r\n\r\nGET /foo2 HTTP/1.1' await request('http://localhost:3000, { method: 'GET', headers: { 'content-type': unsanitizedContentTypeInput }, }) ``` The above snippet will perform two requests in a single `request` API call: 1) `http://localhost:3000/` 2) `http://localhost:3000/foo2` This issue was patched in Undici v5.8.1. Sanitize input when sending content-type headers using user input as a workaround. | |||||
| CVE-2022-35256 | 4 Debian, Llhttp, Nodejs and 1 more | 4 Debian Linux, Llhttp, Node.js and 1 more | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| 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. | |||||
| CVE-2022-35255 | 3 Debian, Nodejs, Siemens | 3 Debian Linux, Node.js, Sinec Ins | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 9.1 CRITICAL |
| A weak randomness in WebCrypto keygen vulnerability exists in Node.js 18 due to a change with EntropySource() in SecretKeyGenTraits::DoKeyGen() in src/crypto/crypto_keygen.cc. There are two problems with this: 1) It does not check the return value, it assumes EntropySource() always succeeds, but it can (and sometimes will) fail. 2) The random data returned byEntropySource() may not be cryptographically strong and therefore not suitable as keying material. | |||||
| CVE-2022-32223 | 2 Microsoft, Nodejs | 2 Windows, Node.js | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 7.3 HIGH |
| 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. | |||||
| CVE-2022-32222 | 2 Nodejs, Siemens | 2 Node.js, Sinec Ins | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| 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. | |||||
| CVE-2022-32215 | 6 Debian, Fedoraproject, Llhttp and 3 more | 6 Debian Linux, Fedora, Llhttp and 3 more | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| 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). | |||||
| CVE-2022-32214 | 4 Debian, Llhttp, Nodejs and 1 more | 4 Debian Linux, Llhttp, Node.js and 1 more | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| 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). | |||||
| CVE-2022-32213 | 6 Debian, Fedoraproject, Llhttp and 3 more | 6 Debian Linux, Fedora, Llhttp and 3 more | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| 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). | |||||
| CVE-2022-32212 | 4 Debian, Fedoraproject, Nodejs and 1 more | 4 Debian Linux, Fedora, Node.js and 1 more | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 8.1 HIGH |
| 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. | |||||
| CVE-2022-32210 | 1 Nodejs | 1 Undici | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| `Undici.ProxyAgent` never verifies the remote server's certificate, and always exposes all request & response data to the proxy. This unexpectedly means that proxies can MitM all HTTPS traffic, and if the proxy's URL is HTTP then it also means that nominally HTTPS requests are actually sent via plain-text HTTP between Undici and the proxy server. | |||||
| CVE-2022-31151 | 1 Nodejs | 1 Undici | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 3.7 LOW |
| Authorization headers are cleared on cross-origin redirect. However, cookie headers which are sensitive headers and are official headers found in the spec, remain uncleared. There are active users using cookie headers in undici. This may lead to accidental leakage of cookie to a 3rd-party site or a malicious attacker who can control the redirection target (ie. an open redirector) to leak the cookie to the 3rd party site. This was patched in v5.7.1. By default, this vulnerability is not exploitable. Do not enable redirections, i.e. `maxRedirections: 0` (the default). | |||||
| CVE-2022-31150 | 1 Nodejs | 1 Undici | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js. It is possible to inject CRLF sequences into request headers in undici in versions less than 5.7.1. A fix was released in version 5.8.0. Sanitizing all HTTP headers from untrusted sources to eliminate `\r\n` is a workaround for this issue. | |||||