Skip to content

GHSA-pr9r-gxgp-9rm8 CVE-2025-49595

n8n Vulnerable to Denial of Service via Malformed Binary Data Requests

Medium npm
Severity
4.9 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.47%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 40.86% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
Fix
1.99.0
Upgrade n8n to this version or later

Description

Summary

Denial of Service vulnerability in /rest/binary-data endpoint when processing empty filesystem URIs (filesystem:// or filesystem-v2://).

Impact

This is a Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability that allows authenticated attackers to cause service unavailability through malformed filesystem URI requests. The vulnerability affects:

  • The /rest/binary-data endpoint
  • n8n.cloud instances (confirmed HTTP/2 524 timeout responses)

Attackers can exploit this by sending GET requests with empty filesystem URIs (filesystem:// or filesystem-v2://) to the /rest/binary-data endpoint, causing resource exhaustion and service disruption.

Patches

The issue has been patched in 1.99.0. All users should upgrade to this version or later.

The fix introduces strict checking of URI patterns.

Patch commit: https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/pull/16229

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
n8n
< 1.99.0
1.99.0

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.

n8n npm → 1.99.0

npm
npm install n8n@1.99.0
yarn
yarn add n8n@1.99.0
pnpm
pnpm add n8n@1.99.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.9

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
High
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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-v98v-ff95-f3cp
n8n Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via Expression Injection
High Known exploited Also affects n8n
GHSA-qgpw-8g46-w95v
n8n: Git Node branch.<name>.remote Config Key Bypasses Sandbox Path Restriction, Enabling Local Git Repository Read
Medium Also affects n8n
GHSA-65xw-2v52-jhxc
n8n: Cross-User Active Workflow ID and Lifecycle Event Disclosure via Missing userId Filter
Medium Also affects n8n
GHSA-pq6c-vh67-xpm3
n8n: Log Streaming Event Destinations Decrypt Generic-Auth Credentials Without Ownership Check
Medium Also affects n8n
GHSA-cqr2-h44g-v75v
n8n: Cross-Tenant Project-Member PII Disclosure via Missing Per-Project Scope Check on Role Assignment Endpoints
Medium Also affects n8n
GHSA-pf83-w3f9-8m37
n8n: Disabled OIDC SSO Endpoints Remain Active and Issue Valid Sessions
Medium Also affects n8n
GHSA-6xcw-7xm6-48c6
n8n: Expression Sandbox Escape via Shared Builtin Tampering and Code-Printer Injection Leads to Code Execution
High Also affects n8n
GHSA-34ff-336r-5q23
n8n: Domain-Restriction Bypass via Unguarded Model-Search Endpoint in OpenAI Chat Model Node
Medium Also affects n8n
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