Skip to content

GHSA-qpx9-hpmf-5gmw CVE-2026-27601

Underscore has unlimited recursion in _.flatten and _.isEqual, potential for DoS attack

High npm
Severity
8.2 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.06%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 64.63% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-674 Uncontrolled Recursion
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
1.13.8
Upgrade underscore to this version or later

Description

Impact

In simple words, some programs that use _.flatten or _.isEqual could be made to crash. Someone who wants to do harm may be able to do this on purpose. This can only be done if the program has special properties. It only works in Underscore versions up to 1.13.7. A more detailed explanation follows.

In affected versions of Underscore, the _.flatten and _.isEqual functions use recursion without a depth limit. Under very specific conditions, detailed below, an attacker could exploit this in a Denial of Service (DoS) attack by triggering a stack overflow.

A proof of concept (PoC) for this type of attack with _.isEqual:

const _ = require('underscore');

// build JSON string for nested object ~4500 levels deep
// (for this to be an attack, the JSON would have to come from
// a request or other untrusted input)
let json = '';
for (let i = 0; i < 4500; i++) json += '{"n":';
json += '"x"';
for (let i = 0; i < 4500; i++) json += '}';

// construct two distinct objects with equal shape from the above JSON
const a = JSON.parse(json);
const b = JSON.parse(json);

_.isEqual(a, b); // RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded

A proof of concept (PoC) for this type of attack with _.flatten:

const _ = require('underscore');

// build nested array ~4500 levels deep
// (like with _.isEqual, this nested array would have to be sourced
// from an untrusted external source for it to be an attack)
let nested = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 4500; i++) nested = [nested];

_.flatten(nested); // RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded

An application that crashes because of this can be restarted, so the bug is most relevant to applications for which continued operation is important, such as server applications. Furthermore, an application is only vulnerable to this type of attack if ALL of the following conditions are met:

  • Untrusted input must be used to create a recursive datastructure, for example using JSON.parse, with no enforced depth limit.
  • The datastructure thus created must be passed to _.flatten or _.isEqual.
  • In the case of _.flatten, the vulnerability can only be exploited if it is possible for a remote client to prepare a datastructure that consists of arrays at all levels AND if no finite depth limit is passed as the second argument to _.flatten.
  • In the case of _.isEqual, the vulnerability can only be exploited if there exists a code path in which two distinct datastructures that were submitted by the same remote client are compared using _.isEqual. For example, if a client submits data that are stored in a database, and the same client can later submit another datastructure that is then compared to the data that were saved in the database previously, OR if a client submits a single request, but its data are parsed twice, creating two non-identical but equivalent datastructures that are then compared.
  • Exceptions originating from the call to _.flatten or _.isEqual, as a result of a stack overflow, are not being caught.

All versions of Underscore up to and including 1.13.7 are affected by this weakness.

Patches

The problem has been patched in version 1.13.8. Upgrading to 1.13.8 or later completely prevents exploitation.

Note: historically, there have been breaking changes in minor releases of Underscore, especially between versions 1.6 and 1.9. However, upgrading from version 1.9 or later to any later 1.x version should be feasible with little or no effort for all users.

Workarounds

A workaround that works for both functions is to enforce a depth limit on the datastructure that is created from untrusted input. A limit of 1000 levels should prevent attacks from being successful on most systems. In systems with highly constrained hardware, we recommend lower limits, for example 100 levels.

Another possible workaround that only works for _.flatten, is to pass a second argument that limits the flattening depth to 1000 or less.

References

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
underscore
<= 1.13.7
No fix yet
underscore
< 1.13.8
1.13.8

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.

underscore npm → 1.13.8

npm
npm install underscore@1.13.8
yarn
yarn add underscore@1.13.8
pnpm
pnpm add underscore@1.13.8

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 8.2

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

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)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 5.9

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-674: Uncontrolled Recursion

The product does not properly control the amount of recursion that takes place, consuming excessive resources, such as allocated memory or the program stack.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Ensure that an end condition will be reached under all logic conditions. The end condition may include checking against the depth of recursion and exiting with an error if the recursion goes too deep. The complexity of the end condition contributes to the effectiveness of this action.
  • Implementation: Increase the stack size.

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-cf4h-3jhx-xvhq
Arbitrary Code Execution in underscore
Critical Also affects underscore
GHSA-hqq3-7jhf-c5jx
Forge: Denial of service in TLS record processing via call stack exhaustion
High Same weakness, CWE-674
GHSA-wwpr-jff3-395c
Crass: A large number of adjacent CSS comments can trigger a SystemStackError
Medium Same weakness, CWE-674
GHSA-6jxj-px6v-747w
Crass: Deeply nested CSS blocks and functions can trigger a SystemStackError or excessive memory usage
Medium Same weakness, CWE-674
GHSA-vvm8-gf78-28g4
Go JOSE: Panics in JSON parsing
Medium Same weakness, CWE-674
EEF-CVE-2026-65628
Infinite recursion (CPU denial-of-service) in JOSE.JWK.shared_secret/2 on mismatched key types
Not rated yet Same weakness, CWE-674
GHSA-c9rx-x947-fp3h
ApostropheCMS sanitize-html: unbounded recursion when re-sanitizing the fallback of a discarded iframe (stack overflow, nestingLimit not enforced)
Medium Same weakness, CWE-674
GHSA-6wmf-3r64-vcwv
Crass : Large numeric exponents cause CPU and memory denial of service
High Same weakness, CWE-674

Credits: ByamB4, jgonggrijp

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