GHSA-43fc-jf86-j433 CVE-2026-25639
Axios is Vulnerable to Denial of Service via __proto__ Key in mergeConfig
- Severity
- 7.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 2.80%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 86.46% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-1321 Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution')
- CWE-754 Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions
- Fix
1.13.5- Upgrade axios to this version or later
Description
Denial of Service via proto Key in mergeConfig
Summary
The mergeConfig function in axios crashes with a TypeError when processing configuration objects containing __proto__ as an own property. An attacker can trigger this by providing a malicious configuration object created via JSON.parse(), causing complete denial of service.
Details
The vulnerability exists in lib/core/mergeConfig.js at lines 98-101:
utils.forEach(Object.keys({ ...config1, ...config2 }), function computeConfigValue(prop) {
const merge = mergeMap[prop] || mergeDeepProperties;
const configValue = merge(config1[prop], config2[prop], prop);
(utils.isUndefined(configValue) && merge !== mergeDirectKeys) || (config[prop] = configValue);
});
When prop is '__proto__':
JSON.parse('{"__proto__": {...}}')creates an object with__proto__as an own enumerable propertyObject.keys()includes'__proto__'in the iterationmergeMap['__proto__']performs prototype chain lookup, returningObject.prototype(truthy object)- The expression
mergeMap[prop] || mergeDeepPropertiesevaluates toObject.prototype Object.prototype(...)throwsTypeError: merge is not a function
The mergeConfig function is called by:
Axios._request()atlib/core/Axios.js:75Axios.getUri()atlib/core/Axios.js:201- All HTTP method shortcuts (
get,post, etc.) atlib/core/Axios.js:211,224
PoC
import axios from "axios";
const maliciousConfig = JSON.parse('{"__proto__": {"x": 1}}');
await axios.get("https://httpbin.org/get", maliciousConfig);
Reproduction steps:
- Clone axios repository or
npm install axios - Create file
poc.mjswith the code above - Run:
node poc.mjs - Observe the TypeError crash
Verified output (axios 1.13.4):
TypeError: merge is not a function
at computeConfigValue (lib/core/mergeConfig.js:100:25)
at Object.forEach (lib/utils.js:280:10)
at mergeConfig (lib/core/mergeConfig.js:98:9)
Control tests performed:
| Test | Config | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Normal config | {"timeout": 5000} |
SUCCESS |
| Malicious config | JSON.parse('{"__proto__": {"x": 1}}') |
CRASH |
| Nested object | {"headers": {"X-Test": "value"}} |
SUCCESS |
Attack scenario:
An application that accepts user input, parses it with JSON.parse(), and passes it to axios configuration will crash when receiving the payload {"__proto__": {"x": 1}}.
Impact
Denial of Service - Any application using axios that processes user-controlled JSON and passes it to axios configuration methods is vulnerable. The application will crash when processing the malicious payload.
Affected environments:
- Node.js servers using axios for HTTP requests
- Any backend that passes parsed JSON to axios configuration
This is NOT prototype pollution - the application crashes before any assignment occurs.
Affected versions
npm
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 → 1.13.5
- npm
npm install axios@1.13.5- yarn
yarn add axios@1.13.5- pnpm
pnpm add axios@1.13.5
Severity breakdown
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-1321: Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution')
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies attributes that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control modifications of attributes of the object prototype.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: By freezing the object prototype first (for example, Object.freeze(Object.prototype)), modification of the prototype becomes impossible.
- Architecture and Design: By blocking modifications of attributes that resolve to object prototype, such as proto or prototype, this weakness can be mitigated.
- Implementation: When handling untrusted objects, validating using a schema can be used.
- Implementation: By using an object without prototypes (via Object.create(null) ), adding object prototype attributes by accessing the prototype via the special attributes becomes impossible, mitigating this weakness.
- Implementation: Map can be used instead of objects in most cases. If Map methods are used instead of object attributes, it is not possible to access the object prototype or modify it.
CWE-754: Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions
The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Choose languages with features such as exception handling that force the programmer to anticipate unusual conditions that may generate exceptions. Custom exceptions may need to be developed to handle unusual business-logic conditions. Be careful not to pass sensitive exceptions back to the user (CWE-209, CWE-248).
- Implementation: Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is expected.
- Implementation: If using exception handling, catch and throw specific exceptions instead of overly-general exceptions (CWE-396, CWE-397). Catch and handle exceptions as locally as possible so that exceptions do not propagate too far up the call stack (CWE-705). Avoid unchecked or uncaught exceptions where feasible (CWE-248).
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. Exposing additional information to a potential attacker in the context of an exceptional condition can help the attacker determine what attack vectors are most likely to succeed beyond DoS.
- 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, 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.
- Architecture and Design: Use system limits, which should help to prevent resource exhaustion. However, the product should still handle low resource conditions since they may still occur.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/axios/axios/security/advisories/GHSA-43fc-jf86-j433
- github.com/axios/axios/pull/7369
- github.com/axios/axios/pull/7388
- github.com/axios/axios/commit/28c721588c7a77e7503d0a434e016f852c597b57
- github.com/axios/axios/commit/d7ff1409c68168d3057fc3891f911b2b92616f9e
- github.com/axios/axios/releases/tag/v0.30.3
- github.com/axios/axios/releases/tag/v1.13.5
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:10184
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:11414
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:13542
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:13548
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:19712
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:25041
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:2694
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:3087
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:3105
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:3106
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:3107
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:3109
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36882
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:41064
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4942
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:5142
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:5168
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:5174
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:5633
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:5636
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:5665
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:5807
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:6170
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:6174
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:6192
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:6277
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:6308
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:6309
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:6428
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:6497
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:6567
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:6568
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:6802
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:7249
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:8218
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:8229
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:8499
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:8500
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:8501
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:9848
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-25639
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
- security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-25639.json
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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