GHSA-22jq-vg5j-6vgg CVE-2026-54272
ip-address: misclassification of IPv4-mapped/NAT64 IPv6 addresses can bypass SSRF and trust-boundary checks
- Severity
- 6.9 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.40%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 34.40% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
10.2.1- Upgrade ip-address to this version or later
Description
Summary
Address6's special-property checks misclassify IPv4-mapped (::ffff:0:0/96) and NAT64 well-known (64:ff9b::/96) IPv6 addresses. These checks classify an address by its IPv6 wrapper rather than by the IPv4 address it embeds, so isLoopback(), isLinkLocal(), isMulticast(), and isUnspecified() all return false for literals such as ::ffff:127.0.0.1 or ::ffff:169.254.169.254 that actually route to loopback, RFC 1918, or link-local (cloud-metadata) destinations. Address6 also had no isPrivate() method, so a mapped RFC 1918 address could not be detected at all.
An application that builds a network trust-boundary decision on these checks (for example, a filter intended to block Server-Side Request Forgery, or SSRF) may therefore treat an internal target as external and allow the request. SSRF is an attack in which a user-supplied address coaxes the server into making a request to an internal destination the user could not otherwise reach, such as a loopback service or a cloud metadata endpoint.
Details
Address6.getType() classifies an address by matching it against a table of known IPv6 special-use prefixes, returning Global unicast when nothing matches. That table had no entry for the IPv4-mapped range (::ffff:0:0/96), so every mapped address fell through to Global unicast; NAT64 addresses matched their own NAT64 … labels. The boolean checks isLoopback, isUnspecified, and isMulticast compared getType() against a fixed label and so returned false, while isLinkLocal and isULA checked only the native IPv6 ranges.
The library already exposed isMapped4() and to4(), but did not apply them inside these checks, so a mapped or NAT64 address was never normalized to its embedded IPv4 address before classification. The underlying CIDR matching is correct; the defect is that the special-use table omitted the IPv4-mapped range and the checks performed no embedded-IPv4 normalization.
Affected versions
>= 10.1.1, <= 10.2.0. The is* classification API was introduced for Address4 in 10.1.1 and extended to Address6 in 10.2.0. Releases before 10.1.1 do not expose this API and are not affected through this vector.
Impact
The misclassification covers the entire ::ffff:0:0/96 range, in both dotted and hex notation and case-insensitively, plus the 64:ff9b::/96 NAT64 well-known prefix:
| Address | Reported as | Actually points at |
|---|---|---|
::ffff:127.0.0.1 / ::ffff:7f00:1 |
Global unicast | loopback (127.0.0.0/8) |
::ffff:10.0.0.1 |
Global unicast | RFC 1918 10/8 |
::ffff:172.16.5.5 |
Global unicast | RFC 1918 172.16/12 |
::ffff:192.168.1.1 |
Global unicast | RFC 1918 192.168/16 |
::ffff:169.254.169.254 / ::ffff:a9fe:a9fe |
Global unicast | link-local / cloud metadata (IMDS) |
::ffff:100.64.0.1 |
Global unicast | CGNAT 100.64/10 |
::ffff:0.0.0.0 / ::ffff:255.255.255.255 |
Global unicast | unspecified / broadcast |
64:ff9b::7f00:1 / 64:ff9b::a9fe:a9fe |
NAT64 (well-known) | loopback / IMDS via NAT64 |
For IPv4-mapped addresses the host OS routes to the IPv4 stack, so the misclassification is reachable on any dual-stack host. For NAT64, the classification bypass is unconditional but end-to-end reachability additionally requires a NAT64/DNS64 gateway in the deployment network.
Proof of concept
A guard assembled from these checks lets internal hosts through:
const { Address4, Address6 } = require('ip-address');
// true => block as internal, false => allow outbound
function isBlocked(host) {
try {
const a = new Address4(host);
return a.isPrivate() || a.isLoopback() || a.isLinkLocal() || a.isCGNAT()
|| a.isMulticast() || a.isUnspecified() || a.isBroadcast();
} catch {}
try {
const a = new Address6(host);
return a.isLoopback() || a.isLinkLocal() || a.isULA()
|| a.isMulticast() || a.isUnspecified();
} catch {}
return false;
}
for (const h of ['127.0.0.1', '::1', '10.0.0.1', '8.8.8.8',
'::ffff:127.0.0.1', '::ffff:10.0.0.1',
'::ffff:169.254.169.254', '64:ff9b::7f00:1']) {
console.log(isBlocked(h) ? 'BLOCK ' : 'ALLOW ', h);
}
On affected versions this prints (note that every ::ffff:… and 64:ff9b::… internal target is allowed):
BLOCK 127.0.0.1
BLOCK ::1
BLOCK 10.0.0.1
ALLOW 8.8.8.8
ALLOW ::ffff:127.0.0.1
ALLOW ::ffff:10.0.0.1
ALLOW ::ffff:169.254.169.254
ALLOW 64:ff9b::7f00:1
The first three lines (native loopback, native IPv6 loopback, and a literal RFC 1918 address) are blocked as expected; the IPv4-mapped and NAT64 forms of the same internal destinations are allowed through.
Remediation
Upgrade to the patched release. In the fix, Address6 normalizes IPv4-mapped and NAT64 well-known addresses to their embedded IPv4 address before classifying, via a new embeddedIPv4() helper that isLoopback, isLinkLocal, isMulticast, and isUnspecified consult first. Address6 also gains isPrivate(), isCGNAT(), and isBroadcast() for parity with Address4, and getType() now labels the ::ffff:0:0/96 range as IPv4-mapped. After upgrading, new Address6('::ffff:127.0.0.1').isLoopback() returns true and new Address6('::ffff:10.0.0.1').isPrivate() returns true.
If you cannot upgrade immediately, normalize embedded IPv4 addresses yourself before classifying: call to4() on any address where isMapped4() (or membership in 64:ff9b::/96) is true, and run your IPv4 checks against the result.
A note on SSRF defense
These methods are address classifiers, not a complete SSRF defense. Regardless of this fix, a robust SSRF guard must resolve the hostname and validate the resolved IP against the socket it connects to, and account for DNS rebinding and redirects. Treat these checks as one layer, not the only one.
Credit
Reported by @OV-0-VO.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| ip-address | >= 10.1.1, <= 10.2.0 |
No fix yet |
| ip-address | >= 10.1.1, < 10.2.1 |
10.2.1 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
ip-address npm → 10.2.1
- npm
npm install ip-address@10.2.1- yarn
yarn add ip-address@10.2.1- pnpm
pnpm add ip-address@10.2.1
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 6.9
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- High
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
Weakness
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
- Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
- Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
- Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
- Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
References
Advisories
Fixes and patches
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-rxp7-6hxx-x8q5 ip-address: Address6 matches a zone identifier in quadratic time ahead of its length limit, allowing a single long string to stall the process | Medium | Also affects ip-address |
| GHSA-rpw4-54j3-4h4q ip-address: Address6.isLinkLocal() recognizes fe80::/64 rather than fe80::/10, allowing SSRF and trust-boundary bypass to on-link hosts | Medium | Also affects ip-address |
| GHSA-j6r3-76f7-8jcv ip-address: isInSubnet() and isHostInSubnet() compare addresses of different families as if they shared an address space, allowing an allowlist check to admit an address outside its range | Medium | Also affects ip-address |
| GHSA-h3mg-xc3c-68pw ip-address: Address6 builds a parse diagnostic proportional to the input with no length bound, allowing a single long string to stall or crash the process | Medium | Also affects ip-address |
| GHSA-2vr4-cq9g-pvrc ip-address: no classifier recognizes the NAT64 local-use range 64:ff9b:1::/48, allowing SSRF and trust-boundary bypass | Medium | Also affects ip-address |
| GHSA-mwp4-54f8-5fhr ip-address: Address4 decodes leading-zero octets as decimal while resolvers decode them as octal, allowing SSRF and trust-boundary bypass | High | Also affects ip-address |
| GHSA-4xrf-jv44-h6hh ip-address: a CIDR suffix on the parsed address suppresses special-use classification and can bypass SSRF and trust-boundary checks | Medium | Also affects ip-address |
| GHSA-v2v4-37r5-5v8g ip-address has XSS in Address6 HTML-emitting methods | Medium | Also affects ip-address |
Credits: OV-0-VO
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor