Skip to content

GHSA-rp42-5vxx-qpwr CVE-2026-41324

basic-ftp vulnerable to denial of service via unbounded memory consumption in Client.list()

High npm
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.33%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 26.45% 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
5.3.0
Upgrade basic-ftp to this version or later

Description

Summary

basic-ftp@5.2.2 is vulnerable to denial of service through unbounded memory growth while processing directory listings from a remote FTP server. A malicious or compromised server can send an extremely large or never-ending listing response to Client.list(), causing the client process to consume memory until it becomes unstable or crashes.

Details

The issue is in the package's default directory listing flow.

Client.list() reaches dist/Client.js, where the full listing response is downloaded into a StringWriter before parsing:

File: dist/Client.js:516-527

async _requestListWithCommand(command) {
    const buffer = new StringWriter_1.StringWriter();
    await (0, transfer_1.downloadTo)(buffer, {
        ftp: this.ftp,
        tracker: this._progressTracker,
        command,
        remotePath: "",
        type: "list"
    });
    const text = buffer.getText(this.ftp.encoding);
    this.ftp.log(text);
    return this.parseList(text);
}

The vulnerable sink is StringWriter, which grows an in-memory Buffer with no limit:

File: dist/StringWriter.js:5-20

class StringWriter extends stream_1.Writable {
    constructor() {
        super(...arguments);
        this.buf = Buffer.alloc(0);
    }
    _write(chunk, _, callback) {
        if (chunk instanceof Buffer) {
            this.buf = Buffer.concat([this.buf, chunk]);
            callback(null);
        }
        else {
            callback(new Error("StringWriter expects chunks of type 'Buffer'."));
        }
    }
    getText(encoding) {
        return this.buf.toString(encoding);
    }
}

The critical operation is:

this.buf = Buffer.concat([this.buf, chunk]);

There is no maximum size check, no truncation, and no streaming parser. Because the remote FTP server controls the listing response, it can force the client to keep allocating memory until the process is terminated.

How it happens:

  1. An application connects to an attacker-controlled or compromised FTP server.
  2. The application calls client.list().
  3. The server returns an extremely large or unbounded directory listing.
  4. basic-ftp buffers the full response in StringWriter.
  5. Memory grows without bound due to repeated Buffer.concat(...) calls.

PoC

The following PoC exercises the vulnerable buffering primitive directly:

const { StringWriter } = require("basic-ftp/dist/StringWriter.js");

function mb(n) {
  return Math.round(n / 1024 / 1024) + "MB";
}

const writer = new StringWriter();
let wrote = 0;

for (let i = 0; i < 32; i++) {
  const chunk = Buffer.alloc(4 * 1024 * 1024, 0x41);
  writer.write(chunk);
  wrote += chunk.length;

  if ((i + 1) % 8 === 0) {
    const m = process.memoryUsage();
    console.log("written", mb(wrote), "rss", mb(m.rss), "heap", mb(m.heapUsed), "buf", mb(m.arrayBuffers));
  }
}

console.log("final text len", writer.getText("utf8").length);

Observed output:

written 32MB rss 116MB heap 4MB buf 64MB
written 64MB rss 296MB heap 4MB buf 240MB
written 96MB rss 340MB heap 3MB buf 284MB
written 128MB rss 436MB heap 3MB buf 376MB
final text len 134217728

This demonstrates sustained memory growth in the same code path used to buffer directory listing data.

Supporting files saved alongside this report:

  • poc.js
  • poc_output.txt

Impact

This is a denial-of-service vulnerability affecting applications that use basic-ftp to list directories from remote FTP servers.

  • Vulnerability class: Memory exhaustion / Denial of Service
  • Attack precondition: The victim connects to a malicious or compromised FTP server and performs Client.list()
  • Impacted users: Any application or service using basic-ftp@5.2.2 against untrusted FTP endpoints
  • Security effect: The attacker can cause excessive memory consumption, process instability, and potential process termination

Recommended remediation:

  1. Enforce a maximum listing size.
  2. Abort transfers that exceed the configured limit.
  3. Prefer incremental or streaming parsing over full-response buffering.

Example defensive check:

if (this.buf.length + chunk.length > MAX_LISTING_BYTES) {
    callback(new Error("FTP listing exceeds maximum allowed size."));
    return;
}
this.buf = Buffer.concat([this.buf, chunk]);

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
basic-ftp
<= 5.2.2
No fix yet
basic-ftp
< 5.3.0
5.3.0

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.

basic-ftp npm → 5.3.0

npm
npm install basic-ftp@5.3.0
yarn
yarn add basic-ftp@5.3.0
pnpm
pnpm add basic-ftp@5.3.0

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-c475-qrg2-pj4r
basic-ftp: Quadratic-time CPU denial of service in Client.list() Unix directory-listing parser (RE_LINE backtracking)
High Also affects basic-ftp
GHSA-rpmf-866q-6p89
basic-ftp allows a malicious FTP server to cause client-side denial of service via unbounded multiline control response buffering
High Also affects basic-ftp
GHSA-6v7q-wjvx-w8wg
basic-ftp: Incomplete CRLF Injection Protection Allows Arbitrary FTP Command Execution via Credentials and MKD Commands
High Also affects basic-ftp
GHSA-chqc-8p9q-pq6q
basic-ftp has FTP Command Injection via CRLF
High Also affects basic-ftp
GHSA-5rq4-664w-9x2c
Basic FTP has Path Traversal Vulnerability in its downloadToDir() method
Critical Also affects basic-ftp
GHSA-cggf-277g-3q54
pypdf has possible large memory usage when parsing page tree
High Same weakness, CWE-400
GHSA-3g3m-2fjr-6pw4
Glob: AbortSignal cancellation bypass allows post-timeout filesystem traversal
Medium Same weakness, CWE-400
GHSA-42gh-23hr-vphw
pypdf has possible long runtimes when retrieving page labels
High Same weakness, CWE-400

Credits: MaanVader

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