GHSA-fqj3-h9pc-443h
Duplicate Advisory: Axios: HTTP/2 streamed uploads bypass `maxBodyLength`
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- —
- No score published
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Duplicate Advisory
This advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-mwf2-3pr3-8698. This link is maintained to preserve external references.
Original Description
axios versions >=1.13.0 (Node.js HTTP adapter) fail to enforce the configured maxBodyLength limit on streamed request bodies when requests are sent with httpVersion: 2. Because Node's HTTP/2 request API does not honor the maxBodyLength option and axios's byte-counting stream wrapper is gated on maxRedirects === 0, an attacker who controls a stream passed to axios can cause the application to transmit outbound data exceeding the configured finite maxBodyLength. Impact is limited to resource consumption and policy bypass (excess egress, upstream quota consumption, limited availability); it does not enable code execution, credential disclosure, or request-destination control. Calls using the default maxBodyLength: -1 and browser adapters are not affected.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| axios | >= 1.13.0 |
No fix yet |
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- Low
- Exploit maturity
- Not defined
- Scope
- X
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-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
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Withdrawn
- Last updated by the source
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