Skip to content

GHSA-mh99-v99m-4gvg CVE-2026-14257

brace-expansion: DoS via unbounded expansion length causing an out-of-memory process crash

High npm
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.64%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 50.82% 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
5.0.8
Upgrade brace-expansion to this version or later

Description

Summary

expand() bounds the number of results it produces (the max option, 100_000 by default) but not their length. By chaining many brace groups, an attacker keeps the result count under max while making every result grow with the number of groups. Building max long results — plus the intermediate arrays combined at each brace group — exhausts memory and crashes the Node process with an uncatchable out-of-memory error. try/catch around expand() does not help: the fatal error terminates the process.

A ~7.5 KB input ('{a,b}'.repeat(1500)) is enough to crash a default Node process.

Details

For N chained brace groups such as '{a,b}'.repeat(N):

  • the result count is 2^N, immediately capped at max (100_000), so the max protection appears to hold, but
  • each result is N characters long, so the total output size is max × N characters, which grows without bound in N.

expand_ combines each brace set with the fully-expanded tail:

const post = m.post.length ? expand_(m.post, max, false) : ['']
...
for (let j = 0; j < N.length; j++) {
  for (let k = 0; k < post.length && expansions.length < max; k++) {
    const expansion = pre + N[j] + post[k]   // grows one group longer per level
    ...
    expansions.push(expansion)
  }
}

The loop guard expansions.length < max limits how many strings are built, but nothing limits how long they get. Each recursion level materializes another array of up to max strings, one character longer than the level below, and — because V8 represents pre + N[j] + post[k] as a cons-string (rope) that references post[k] — those intermediate strings stay reachable through the whole chain. Memory therefore scales with max × N.

Measured on 5.0.7 ('{a,b}'.repeat(N), default max):

groups (N) input bytes result count peak RSS
20 100 100,000 ~80 MB
50 250 100,000 ~214 MB
100 500 100,000 ~409 MB
300 1,500 100,000 ~1,148 MB
1500 7,500 — OOM crash

Proof of concept

const { expand } = require('brace-expansion')

// ~7.5 KB input — crashes the process with a fatal, uncatchable OOM:
//   FATAL ERROR: ... JavaScript heap out of memory
try {
  expand('{a,b}'.repeat(1500))
} catch (e) {
  // never reached — the process is already dead
}

Impact

Any application that passes attacker-influenced strings to brace-expansion.expand() — directly, or transitively via minimatch / glob brace patterns — can be crashed by a small request. Because the failure is a fatal V8 out-of-memory error rather than a thrown exception, it cannot be caught and it takes down the whole worker/process, denying service.

Remediation

Upgrade to a patched release. The fix bounds the total number of characters a single expand() call may accumulate (EXPANSION_MAX_LENGTH, default 4_000_000, configurable via a new maxLength option), applied inside the output-building loops so intermediate arrays are bounded too. Once the limit is reached, output is truncated — consistent with how max already truncates — instead of growing without bound. The limit sits well above any realistic expansion (100,000 results hitting max measure ~1M characters), so legitimate input is unaffected.

After the fix, '{a,b}'.repeat(1500) returns a bounded, truncated result in ~0.7 s using ~340 MB and never crashes, including under a constrained 512 MB heap.

The fix bounds memory but the algorithm still rebuilds intermediate arrays at each level (roughly O(N × maxLength) work on this input class). A streaming rewrite that produces output in O(total output size) can be a non-urgent follow-up.

If immediate upgrade isn't possible, avoid passing untrusted input to expand() / glob brace patterns, or pass a small explicit max and maxLength.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
brace-expansion
>= 4.0.0, < 5.0.8
5.0.8
brace-expansion
>= 3.0.0, < 3.0.3
3.0.3
brace-expansion
>= 2.0.0, < 2.1.3
2.1.3
brace-expansion
< 1.1.17
1.1.17
brace-expansion
>= 4.0.0, < 5.0.8
5.0.8
brace-expansion
>= 3.0.0, < 3.0.3
3.0.3
brace-expansion
>= 2.0.0, < 2.1.3
2.1.3
brace-expansion
< 1.1.17
1.1.17

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.

brace-expansion npm → 5.0.8

npm
npm install brace-expansion@5.0.8
yarn
yarn add brace-expansion@5.0.8
pnpm
pnpm add brace-expansion@5.0.8

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-qhr7-859c-m2p7
brace-expansion: DoS via uncontrolled recursion on nested brace groups causing stack exhaustion
High Also affects brace-expansion
GHSA-q2hr-2g5m-vwhr
brace-expansion: Quadratic-time expansion of the `{a},b}` rewrite causes CPU denial of service
Medium Also affects brace-expansion
GHSA-6j4f-fj2g-mc7p
brace-expansion: DoS via uncontrolled recursion in parseCommaParts causing stack exhaustion
High Also affects brace-expansion
GHSA-rgw5-rvv9-x895
brace-expansion: DoS via unbounded intermediate arrays, bypassing the CVE-2026-14257 mitigation
High Also affects brace-expansion
GHSA-3jxr-9vmj-r5cp
brace-expansion: DoS via exponential-time expansion of consecutive non-expanding {} groups
High Also affects brace-expansion
GHSA-jxxr-4gwj-5jf2
brace-expansion: Large numeric range defeats documented `max` DoS protection
High Also affects brace-expansion
GHSA-f886-m6hf-6m8v
brace-expansion: Zero-step sequence causes process hang and memory exhaustion
High Also affects brace-expansion
GHSA-v6h2-p8h4-qcjw
brace-expansion Regular Expression Denial of Service vulnerability
Low Also affects brace-expansion

Credits: G-Rath, bnbdr

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