GHSA-8g7p-74h8-hg48 CVE-2018-3739
Denial of Service in https-proxy-agent
Critical
npm
- Severity
- 9.1 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.74%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 77.68% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
2.2.0- Upgrade https-proxy-agent to this version or later
Description
Versions of https-proxy-agent before 2.2.0 are vulnerable to denial of service. This is due to unsanitized options (proxy.auth) being passed to Buffer().
Recommendation
Update to version 2.2.0 or later.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| https-proxy-agent | < 2.2.0 |
2.2.0 |
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.
https-proxy-agent npm → 2.2.0
- npm
npm install https-proxy-agent@2.2.0- yarn
yarn add https-proxy-agent@2.2.0- pnpm
pnpm add https-proxy-agent@2.2.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.0 9.1
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
How to prevent it
- 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. To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.
- Architecture and Design: Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
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.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-pc5p-h8pf-mvwp Machine-In-The-Middle in https-proxy-agent | Medium | Also affects https-proxy-agent |
| GHSA-9v9v-9qvf-h2hj Pillow: Heap over-read in WMF/EMF rendering via 16-bit dimension truncation (Windows builds) | High | Same weakness, CWE-125 |
| GHSA-v9pv-5gc8-w2m6 Pillow multi-frame loaders can reuse stale native image storage after mode transitions | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-125 |
| GHSA-h3v5-h239-pg29 Electron: Off-screen rendering on macOS trusts GPU-supplied frame geometry | Low | Same weakness, CWE-125 |
| GHSA-3qxv-5xgr-q7w9 Electron: Frame subscription trusts GPU-supplied frame geometry | Low | Same weakness, CWE-125 |
| GHSA-pchr-8j38-3x4p Pillow: TIFF encoder ColorMap plane-size mismatch causes a heap out-of-bounds read | High | Same weakness, CWE-125 |
| GHSA-c6hw-5grf-ff96 Pillow: OOB read in TiffDecode.c tile and RGBA paths leaks heap memory into pixels | High | Same weakness, CWE-125 |
| GHSA-f8qh-mqg4-9939 Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-96232 - .NET and Visual Studio Information Disclosure Vulnerability | High | Same weakness, CWE-125 |
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