Skip to content

GHSA-42h9-826w-cgv3 CVE-2026-67313

Axios: Excessive recursion in formDataToJSON can cause denial of service

High npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.52%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 44.26% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
CWE-674 Uncontrolled Recursion
Fix
0.33.0
Upgrade axios to this version or later

Description

Summary

Axios versions 0.28.0 and later contain uncontrolled recursion in formDataToJSON, the helper behind the public axios.formToJSON() / named formToJSON API and the default request transform used when FormData is sent with an application/json content type.

Applications are affected when they pass attacker-controlled FormData field names into this functionality. A field name with thousands of nested bracket segments can exhaust the JavaScript call stack and throw RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded, causing request failure and, in applications that do not handle the exception or rejected promise, possible process termination.

Impact

The impact is denial of service against applications that process untrusted FormData field names through axios' FormData-to-JSON conversion.

The vulnerable path is not reached by merely installing axios, by normal multipart FormData pass-through, or by ordinary axios requests that do not request JSON serialisation of FormData. In the default axios request, the error is produced before network I/O and returned as a rejected Promise. Direct use of formToJSON() throws synchronously.

Server-side applications are the primary risk when remote users can submit arbitrary form field names, and the application converts those fields with formToJSON() or sends them through axios as JSON.

Affected Functionality

Affected APIs and paths:

  • axios.formToJSON(formData)
  • import { formToJSON } from "axios"
  • lib/helpers/formDataToJSON.js
  • axios default transformRequest when data is FormData and Content-Type contains application/json

Unaffected or lower-risk paths:

  • Normal multipart FormData requests without JSON Content-Type
  • toFormData() object-to-FormData serialisation, which already has a maxDepth guard
  • Axios versions before 0.28.0, where this helper and public API were not present

Technical Details

lib/helpers/formDataToJSON.js parses a form field name into path segments with parsePropPath(). For a key such as a[x][x][x], each bracketed segment becomes another path element.

formDataToJSON() then calls the nested buildPath(path, value, target, index) function. buildPath() recursively calls itself once for each path segment and does not enforce a maximum depth:

const result = buildPath(path, value, target[name], index);

A key containing thousands of bracket segments, therefore, creates thousands of recursive calls. At sufficient depth, V8 throws RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded.

Axios already applies a depth guard to the inverse serializer in lib/helpers/toFormData.js, where maxDepth defaults to 100 and exceeding it throws AxiosError with code ERR_FORM_DATA_DEPTH_EXCEEDED. formDataToJSON() does not currently have equivalent protection.

Proof of Concept of Attack

import { formToJSON } from "axios";

const fd = new FormData();
fd.append("a" + "[x]".repeat(15000), "value");

try {
  formToJSON(fd);
  console.log("not vulnerable");
} catch (err) {
  console.log(`${err.constructor.name}: ${err.message}`);
}

Expected vulnerable result:

RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded

The axios request transform path can also be reached before network I/O:

import axios from "axios";

const fd = new FormData();
fd.append("a" + "[x]".repeat(15000), "value");

await axios
  .post("http://127.0.0.1:1/", fd, {
    headers: { "Content-Type": "application/json" }
  })
  .catch((err) => console.log(`${err.constructor.name}: ${err.message}`));

Expected vulnerable result:

RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded

Workarounds

Applications can avoid the vulnerable path by not converting attacker-controlled FormData to JSON with axios.

If conversion is required before a fixed axios release is available, validate FormData field names before calling formToJSON() or before sending FormData with Content-Type: application/json. Reject keys whose parsed nesting depth exceeds the application's expected schema.

For axios requests carrying untrusted FormData, avoid setting Content-Type: application/json; leaving the data as multipart FormData bypasses formDataToJSON().

Catching the resulting error can prevent process termination, but it does not remove the uncontrolled-recursion behaviour and should not be treated as the primary mitigation.

<details> <summary>Original Report</summary> # Axios SSRF via Incomplete Loopback Detection ## CWE-918 | CVSS 7.5 (HIGH) | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L


1. Classification

CWE CVSS Score Severity Type
CWE-918 7.5 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L) HIGH Server-Side Request Forgery

2. Description

Summary

The shouldBypassProxy() function in Axios fails to recognise 0.0.0.0, ::, and ::ffff:0.0.0.0 as loopback addresses. When NO_PROXY=localhost is configured, requests to these addresses are incorrectly forwarded through the proxy instead of being sent directly, enabling an SSRF attack against internal services reachable via the proxy's loopback interface.

Root Cause

File: lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js

isIPv4Loopback (lines 3-8): Only checks for 127.x.x.x addresses by inspecting parts[0] !== '127'. The 0.0.0.0 address has parts[0] === '0', so it falls through as non-loopback, even though on Linux 0.0.0.0 routes to the loopback interface.

isIPv6Loopback (lines 10-38): Only checks host === '::1'. The :: address (unspecified IPv6) also routes to the loopback, but is not recognised.

Attack Flow:

isIPv4Loopback (line 3) — fails for 0.0.0.0
  → isLoopback (line 44) — wraps both checks, returns false
    → shouldBypassProxy (line 127) — PUBLIC API, exported default
      → lib/adapters/http.js (line 190) — Node.js HTTP adapter

Attack Vector

  • Access Vector: Network (AV:N)
  • Access Complexity: Low (AC:L) — attacker only needs control of a URL
  • Privileges Required: None (PR:N)
  • User Interaction: None (UI:N)

3. Proof of Concept

Phase 1: Logic Verification

import shouldBypassProxy from 'axios/lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js';

// Normal loopback — correctly returns true (bypasses proxy)
shouldBypassProxy('http://127.0.0.1:9999/');  // → true

// Vulnerable — returns false (goes through proxy!)
shouldBypassProxy('http://0.0.0.0:9999/');    // → false  ← SSRF
shouldBypassProxy('http://[::]:9999/');        // → false  ← SSRF
shouldBypassProxy('http://[::ffff:0.0.0.0]:9999/'); // → false ← SSRF

Phase 2: Docker E2E Reproduction

A full 3-container Docker reproduction was created and tested:

  • Proxy container: Simple HTTP forward proxy on port 8888
  • Internal container: Internal service on port 9999 (simulates sensitive internal resource)
  • Attacker container: Runs the test script with Axios source mounted

Reproduction steps:

cd /tmp/deep-e2e
docker compose up -d
docker compose exec attacker node test-ssrf.js

Results:

  • Test 1: 127.0.0.1 + NO_PROXY=localhost → BYPASS (correct)
  • Test 2: 0.0.0.0 + NO_PROXY=localhost → VIA_PROXY (SSRF)
  • Test 3: [::] + NO_PROXY=localhost → VIA_PROXY (SSRF)
  • Test 4: [::ffff:0.0.0.0] + NO_PROXY=localhost → VIA_PROXY (SSRF)

Phase 3: Actual Axios Client

The real Axios HTTP client (v1.16.1, source tree) was tested through proxy configuration:

  • Axios with proxy: { host: 'proxy', port: 8888 }
  • Setting NO_PROXY=localhost and requesting http://0.0.0.0:9999/
  • Result: Axios forwarded the request through the proxy instead of bypassing it

4. Impact

Attack Scenario

  1. Attacker has control over a URL that an Axios client will request (direct input, redirect target, open redirect chain)
  2. The Axios client is configured with a proxy (e.g., corporate proxy) and NO_PROXY=localhost to protect internal services
  3. Attacker supplies http://0.0.0.0:8080/admin as the target URL
  4. Axios sends the request through the proxy
  5. The proxy resolves 0.0.0.0 → the proxy's own loopback → reaches the internal admin service on port 8080

Potential Consequences

  • Information disclosure (C:L): Internal service responses become accessible
  • Integrity impact (I:L): Attacker can trigger actions on internal services (if proxy supports PUT/POST/DELETE)
  • Availability impact (A:L): Limited — depends on internal service behavior

Likelihood

  • High — proxy bypass is a common pattern in microservice architectures
  • Medium — requires attacker control of a URL (not always available)

5. Remediation

Code Fix

File: lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js

function isIPv4Loopback(host) {
  if (host === '0.0.0.0') return true;  // ADD THIS LINE
  const parts = host.split('.');
  if (parts.length !== 4) return false;
  if (parts[0] !== '127') return false;
  return parts.every(p => /^\d+$/.test(p) && Number(p) >= 0 && Number(p) <= 255);
}

function isIPv6Loopback(host) {
  if (host === '::1' || host === '::') return true;  // ADD '::'
  // ... rest of implementation
}

Workarounds

  • Add 0.0.0.0 and :: to the NO_PROXY environment variable explicitly
  • Use 127.0.0.1 instead of 0.0.0.0 in all internal service URLs
  • Implement URL validation to reject 0.0.0.0 and :: before passing to Axios

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
axios
>= 0.28.0, < 0.33.0
0.33.0
axios
>= 1.0.0, < 1.18.0
1.18.0

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.

axios npm → 0.33.0

npm
npm install axios@0.33.0
yarn
yarn add axios@0.33.0
pnpm
pnpm add axios@0.33.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

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-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How to prevent it
  • 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. 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.
  • 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, or 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 is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

CWE-674: Uncontrolled Recursion

The product does not properly control the amount of recursion that takes place, consuming excessive resources, such as allocated memory or the program stack.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Ensure that an end condition will be reached under all logic conditions. The end condition may include checking against the depth of recursion and exiting with an error if the recursion goes too deep. The complexity of the end condition contributes to the effectiveness of this action.
  • Implementation: Increase the stack size.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-44g4-m2mj-wpvx
Axios: CIDR-form NO_PROXY entries are ignored, causing proxy exclusion bypass for internal IP ranges
Medium Also affects axios
GHSA-x97p-jq2g-jp4f
Axios: Prototype Pollution Gadget in axios toFormData Options
High Also affects axios
GHSA-vh66-26gq-q6x8
Axios: Prototype pollution gadget in fetch adapter can alter outbound requests
Medium Also affects axios
GHSA-r4gj-5m52-g5wh
Axios: maxRedirects: 0 is not enforced by the fetch adapter, allowing redirect-based SSRF
High Also affects axios
GHSA-mghh-pgcx-3jjj
Axios: ReDoS (O(N²)) in shouldBypassProxy host normalization, reachable via untrusted redirect Location
High Also affects axios
GHSA-m8m8-qj5v-23w3
Axios: Node HTTP adapter prototype-pollution gadget allows request socket hijack via inherited createConnection
High Also affects axios
GHSA-j8rh-479h-cp32
Axios: Header Injection via Inherited headers After Minimal Interceptor
Medium Also affects axios
GHSA-c29m-xwm3-cm6r
Axios: ReDoS in fromDataURI data: URL parser freezes the Node event loop (DoS)
High Also affects axios
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