GHSA-777c-7fjr-54vf CVE-2026-44488
Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in Axios
- Severity
- 7.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.67%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 51.97% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
- Fix
1.16.0- Upgrade axios to this version or later
Description
Summary
Axios versions 1.7.0 through 1.15.x did not enforce configured request and response size limits when requests were sent with the fetch adapter. Applications that selected adapter: 'fetch', or ran in environments where axios resolved to the fetch adapter, could receive or send bodies larger than maxContentLength or maxBodyLength despite those limits being explicitly configured.
This can cause resource exhaustion in server-side usage when a malicious or compromised server returns an oversized response, when an attacker can supply a large data: URL, or when an application forwards attacker-controlled request bodies through axios while relying on maxBodyLength as a boundary.
Impact
The impact is availability-only. Affected applications may process, buffer, or transmit data beyond the configured limit, potentially exhausting memory, CPU, or network resources.
This does not affect axios’s default unlimited behaviour by itself: maxContentLength and maxBodyLength default to -1. The vulnerability exists when an application has configured finite limits and expects axios to enforce them.
Server-side runtimes are the primary concern. Browser impact is generally constrained by the browser process and browser fetch behavior, and should not be described as server process exhaustion.
Affected Functionality
Affected functionality includes requests using the built-in fetch adapter with finite maxContentLength or maxBodyLength values.
Relevant configurations include:
adapter: 'fetch'adapter: ['fetch', ...]whenfetchis selected- environments where neither
xhrnorhttpis available and axios falls back tofetch - custom fetch environments configured through
env.fetch
Unaffected functionality includes:
- Node.js default
httpadapter enforcement - versions before the fetch adapter was introduced
- configurations that do not rely on finite axios size limits
Technical Details
In vulnerable versions, lib/adapters/fetch.js destructured request config without maxContentLength or maxBodyLength. The adapter dispatched fetch() and then materialized the response through text(), arrayBuffer(), blob(), or related resolvers without checking the configured response limit.
The fix in e5540dc added:
maxContentLengthandmaxBodyLengthreads inlib/adapters/fetch.js- upfront
data:URL decoded-size checks - outbound body-size checks before dispatch
Content-Lengthresponse pre-checks- streaming response enforcement
- fallback checks for environments without
ReadableStream - regression tests in
tests/unit/adapters/fetch.test.js
Proof of Concept of Attack
import http from 'node:http';
import axios from 'axios';
const server = http.createServer((req, res) => {
let received = 0;
req.on('data', chunk => {
received += chunk.length;
});
req.on('end', () => {
res.end(JSON.stringify({ received }));
});
});
await new Promise(resolve => server.listen(0, resolve));
const url = `http://127.0.0.1:${server.address().port}/`;
await axios.post(url, 'A'.repeat(2 * 1024 * 1024), {
adapter: 'fetch',
maxBodyLength: 1024
});
// Vulnerable versions succeed and the server receives 2097152 bytes.
// Fixed versions reject with ERR_BAD_REQUEST.
server.close();
Workarounds
Use the Node.js http adapter for server-side requests where finite size limits are security-relevant.
Validate or cap attacker-controlled request bodies before passing them to axios.
Reject or strictly allowlist attacker-controlled URL schemes, especially data: URLs, before calling axios.
<details> <summary>Original Report</summary>
Summary
When Axios is used with adapter: 'fetch', configured body/response size limits are not enforced. This allows oversized uploads/downloads (including data: URLs) despite explicit limits, which can lead to memory/resource exhaustion in server-side usage.
Details
maxBodyLength and maxContentLength are not applied in the fetch adapter flow:
- lib/adapters/fetch.js (146-160): config destructuring does not include these controls.
- lib/adapters/fetch.js (220-234): request is dispatched with fetch() without request-size enforcement.
- lib/adapters/fetch.js (267-283): response is materialized via text(), arrayBuffer(), blob(), etc. without response-size checks. By contrast, the HTTP adapter enforces both limits.
PoC
Environment:
- Axios main at commit f7a4ee2
- Node v24.2.0
Steps:
- Start an HTTP server that counts received bytes and echoes {received}.
- Send 2 MiB with:
- adapter: 'fetch'
- maxBodyLength: 1024
- Request a 4 KiB data: URL with:
- adapter: 'fetch'
- maxContentLength: 16
Expected secure behavior: both requests rejected. Observed:
- Upload: success, server received 2097152
- data: response: success, length 4096
Impact
Type: DoS / resource exhaustion due to limit bypass. Impacted: applications using Axios fetch adapter as a server-side security control boundary for untrusted request/response sizes.
</details>
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| axios | >= 1.7.0, < 1.16.0 |
1.16.0 |
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 → 1.16.0
- npm
npm install axios@1.16.0- yarn
yarn add axios@1.16.0- pnpm
pnpm add axios@1.16.0
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-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
Packages
Other links
- github.com/axios/axios/security/advisories/GHSA-777c-7fjr-54vf
- github.com/axios/axios/pull/10795
- github.com/axios/axios/pull/10796
- github.com/axios/axios/releases/tag/v1.16.0
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:20889
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:20938
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:27044
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:27063
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:28964
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:29082
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:29197
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:30650
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:30651
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33155
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33160
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33163
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33173
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33183
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33574
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:34160
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:34374
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:34525
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:34527
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:34530
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36611
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36754
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36820
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36882
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36883
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:40262
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:40768
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:40792
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:40795
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:41031
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:41055
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:41064
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:41066
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:41928
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:41951
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:42078
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:42085
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:42142
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:42146
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:42796
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:43052
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:46885
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:46903
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:50300
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54188
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54555
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:57191
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:60520
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:66488
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:66545
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-44488
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
- security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-44488.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