Skip to content

GHSA-q5pr-72pq-83v3 CVE-2026-86250

H3: Unbounded Chunked Cookie Count in Session Cleanup Loop may Lead to Denial of Service

High npm
Severity
8.7 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.49%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 42.02% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
Fix
2.0.1-rc.18
Upgrade h3 to this version or later

Description

Summary

The setChunkedCookie() and deleteChunkedCookie() functions in h3 trust the chunk count parsed from a user-controlled cookie value (__chunked__N) without any upper bound validation. An unauthenticated attacker can send a single request with a crafted cookie header (e.g., Cookie: h3=__chunked__999999) to any endpoint using sessions, causing the server to enter an O(n²) loop that hangs the process.

Details

The chunked cookie system stores large cookie values by splitting them into numbered chunks. The main cookie stores a sentinel value __chunked__N indicating how many chunks exist. When setting a new chunked cookie, the code cleans up any previous chunks that are no longer needed.

The vulnerability is in getChunkedCookieCount() at src/utils/cookie.ts:244-249:

function getChunkedCookieCount(cookie: string | undefined): number {
  if (!cookie?.startsWith(CHUNKED_COOKIE)) {
    return Number.NaN;
  }
  return Number.parseInt(cookie.slice(CHUNKED_COOKIE.length));
  // No upper bound check — attacker controls this value
}

This value is consumed without validation in the cleanup loop of setChunkedCookie() at src/utils/cookie.ts:182-190:

const previousCookie = getCookie(event, name); // reads from request headers
if (previousCookie?.startsWith(CHUNKED_COOKIE)) {
  const previousChunkCount = getChunkedCookieCount(previousCookie);
  if (previousChunkCount > chunkCount) {
    for (let i = chunkCount; i <= previousChunkCount; i++) {
      deleteCookie(event, chunkCookieName(name, i), options);
      // Each deleteCookie → setCookie → scans ALL existing set-cookie headers
    }
  }
}

The same issue exists in deleteChunkedCookie() at src/utils/cookie.ts:227-232:

const chunksCount = getChunkedCookieCount(mainCookie);
if (chunksCount >= 0) {
  for (let i = 0; i < chunksCount; i++) {
    deleteCookie(event, chunkCookieName(name, i + 1), serializeOptions);
  }
}

The exploit chain through sessions:

  1. Attacker sends Cookie: h3=__chunked__999999 to any session-using endpoint
  2. getSession() (src/utils/session.ts:83) calls getChunkedCookie(event, "h3") (line 124)
  3. getChunkedCookie() returns undefined — the early return at line 153 fires because no actual chunk cookies (e.g., h3.1) exist in the request
  4. Since sealedSession is undefined, session.id remains empty (line 140), triggering updateSession() (line 143)
  5. updateSession() calls setChunkedCookie() with the newly sealed session value (line 179)
  6. Inside setChunkedCookie(), getCookie(event, name) re-reads the original request cookie __chunked__999999 at line 182
  7. previousChunkCount = 999999, chunkCount = 1 (new sealed session is small)
  8. The cleanup loop runs 999,998 iterations, each calling deleteCookie() → setCookie()
  9. Each setCookie() call reads ALL existing set-cookie response headers via getSetCookie() (line 91) and iterates through them for deduplication (lines 100-106)
  10. This creates O(n²) complexity — approximately 10¹² operations for n=999999

Key observation: While getChunkedCookie() has an early-return optimization (line 153) that prevents it from looping on missing chunks, the cleanup loops in setChunkedCookie() and deleteChunkedCookie() have no such protection and run unconditionally for the full claimed chunk count.

PoC

Prerequisites: An h3 application with any endpoint using getSession() or useSession().

Example minimal server:

import { H3 } from "h3";
import { getSession } from "h3";

const app = new H3();

app.get("/dashboard", async (event) => {
  const session = await getSession(event, {
    password: "my-secret-password-at-least-32-chars-long!",
  });
  return { user: session.data.user || "anonymous" };
});

export default app;

Attack (single request, no authentication):

# This single request will hang the server process
curl -H 'Cookie: h3=__chunked__999999' http://localhost:3000/dashboard

For a less extreme but still impactful test:

# ~100K iterations — will take several seconds and block all other requests
curl -H 'Cookie: h3=__chunked__100000' http://localhost:3000/dashboard

The deleteChunkedCookie() path is exploitable via clearSession():

app.post("/logout", async (event) => {
  await clearSession(event, {
    password: "my-secret-password-at-least-32-chars-long!",
  });
  return { ok: true };
});
curl -X POST -H 'Cookie: h3=__chunked__999999' http://localhost:3000/logout

Impact

  • Complete Denial of Service: A single unauthenticated request with a 27-byte cookie header can hang the server process indefinitely. Node.js is single-threaded, so this blocks all request handling.
  • No authentication required: The attack only requires the ability to send HTTP requests with a crafted cookie header.
  • Minimal attacker effort: The payload is trivially small (Cookie: h3=__chunked__999999), making it easy to automate or repeat.
  • Wide attack surface: Any endpoint in the application that uses getSession(), useSession(), or clearSession() is vulnerable. Session usage is extremely common in web applications.
  • Amplification: The ratio of attacker input (27 bytes) to server work (billions of operations) is extreme.

Recommended Fix

Add a maximum chunk count constant and validate in getChunkedCookieCount():

const MAX_CHUNKED_COOKIE_COUNT = 100;

function getChunkedCookieCount(cookie: string | undefined): number {
  if (!cookie?.startsWith(CHUNKED_COOKIE)) {
    return Number.NaN;
  }
  const count = Number.parseInt(cookie.slice(CHUNKED_COOKIE.length));
  if (Number.isNaN(count) || count < 0 || count > MAX_CHUNKED_COOKIE_COUNT) {
    return Number.NaN;
  }
  return count;
}

This clamps the parsed count at a safe maximum. Since each chunk can hold ~4000 bytes and 100 chunks would allow ~400KB of cookie data (far beyond any practical limit), MAX_CHUNKED_COOKIE_COUNT = 100 is generous while eliminating the DoS vector.

Additionally, the callers should be updated to handle NaN safely. The cleanup loop in setChunkedCookie() already handles this correctly since NaN > chunkCount is false, so the loop won't execute. The deleteChunkedCookie() loop also handles it since NaN >= 0 is false.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
h3
>= 2.0.0-beta.4, < 2.0.1-rc.18
2.0.1-rc.18
h3
>= 2.0.0-beta.4, < 2.0.1-rc.18
2.0.1-rc.18

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.

h3 npm → 2.0.1-rc.18

npm
npm install h3@2.0.1-rc.18
yarn
yarn add h3@2.0.1-rc.18
pnpm
pnpm add h3@2.0.1-rc.18

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 8.7

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-fp4x-ggrf-wmc6
H3 has an Open Redirect via Protocol-Relative Path in redirectBack() Referer Validation
Medium Also affects h3
GHSA-4hxc-9384-m385
h3: SSE Event Injection via Unsanitized Carriage Return (`\r`) in EventStream Data and Comment Fields (Bypass of CVE Fix)
Medium Also affects h3
GHSA-2j6q-whv2-gh6w
h3: Missing Path Segment Boundary Check in `mount()` Causes Middleware Execution on Unrelated Prefix-Matching Routes
Medium Also affects h3
GHSA-72gr-qfp7-vwhw
h3: Double Decoding in `serveStatic` Bypasses `resolveDotSegments` Path Traversal Protection via `%252e%252e`
High Also affects h3
GHSA-wr4h-v87w-p3r7
h3 has a Path Traversal via Percent-Encoded Dot Segments in serveStatic Allows Arbitrary File Read
High Also affects h3
GHSA-3vj8-jmxq-cgj5
h3 has a middleware bypass with one gadget
Critical Also affects h3
GHSA-26f5-8h2x-34xh
h3 has an observable timing discrepancy in basic auth utils
Medium Also affects h3
GHSA-22cc-p3c6-wpvm
h3 has a Server-Sent Events Injection via Unsanitized Newlines in Event Stream Fields
Critical Also affects h3

Credits: offset

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