GHSA-5c9x-8gcm-mpgx CVE-2026-42034

Axios' HTTP adapter-streamed uploads bypass maxBodyLength when maxRedirects: 0

Medium npm

Severity: 5.3 / 10; Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.33%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 25.85% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix: 1.15.1; Upgrade axios to this version or later

Description

Summary

For stream request bodies, maxBodyLength is bypassed when maxRedirects is set to 0 (native http/https transport path). Oversized streamed uploads are sent fully even when the caller sets strict body limits.

Details

Relevant flow in lib/adapters/http.js:

556-564: maxBodyLength check applies only to buffered/non-stream data.
681-682: maxRedirects === 0 selects native http/https transport.
694-699: options.maxBodyLength is set, but native transport does not enforce it.
925-945: stream is piped directly to socket (data.pipe(req)) with no Axios byte counting.

This creates a path-specific bypass for streamed uploads.

PoC

Environment:

Axios main at commit f7a4ee2
Node v24.2.0

Steps:

Start an HTTP server that counts uploaded bytes and returns {received}.
Send a 2 MiB Readable stream with:
- adapter: 'http'
- maxBodyLength: 1024
- maxRedirects: 0

Observed:

Request succeeds; server reports received: 2097152.

Control checks:

Same stream with default/nonzero redirects: rejected with ERR_FR_MAX_BODY_LENGTH_EXCEEDED.
Buffered body with maxRedirects: 0: rejected with ERR_BAD_REQUEST.

Impact

Type: DoS / uncontrolled upstream upload / resource exhaustion. Impacted: Node.js services using streamed request bodies with maxBodyLength expecting hard enforcement, especially when following Axios guidance to use maxRedirects: 0 for streams.

Affected versions

npm

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
axios	`>= 1.0.0, < 1.15.1`	`1.15.1`
axios	`< 0.31.1`	`0.31.1`

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.

axios npm → `1.15.1`

npm

npm install axios@1.15.1

yarn

yarn add axios@1.15.1

pnpm

pnpm add axios@1.15.1

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.3

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

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

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

Advisories

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42034

Packages

github.com/axios/axios

Timeline

Apr 24, 2026 Published
Sep 10, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

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

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