GHSA-rpmf-866q-6p89 CVE-2026-44240
basic-ftp allows a malicious FTP server to cause client-side denial of service via unbounded multiline control response buffering
- Severity
- 7.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.51%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 43.79% 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
5.3.1- Upgrade basic-ftp to this version or later
Description
Summary
basic-ftp is vulnerable to client-side denial of service when parsing FTP control-channel multiline responses.
A malicious or compromised FTP server can send an unterminated multiline response during the initial FTP banner phase, before authentication. The client keeps appending attacker-controlled data into FtpContext._partialResponse and repeatedly reparses the accumulated buffer without enforcing a maximum control response size.
As a result, an application using basic-ftp can remain stuck in connect() while memory and CPU usage grow under attacker-controlled input. This can lead to process-level denial of service, container OOM kills, worker restarts, queue backlog, or service degradation in applications that automatically connect to FTP endpoints.
Details
Root cause
The root cause is that incomplete FTP multiline control responses are buffered without an upper bound.
FtpContext stores incomplete control-channel data in _partialResponse:
Incoming control-channel data is handled in _onControlSocketData. The implementation concatenates the previous incomplete response with the new chunk, parses the entire accumulated string, and stores parsed.rest back into _partialResponse:
The relevant flow is:
completeResponse = this._partialResponse + chunk parsed = parseControlResponse(completeResponse) this._partialResponse = parsed.rest
There is no maximum size check before concatenating, before parsing, or before storing parsed.rest.
The parser accepts incomplete multiline responses and returns the entire unterminated multiline group as rest:
If a server starts a multiline FTP response:
220-malicious banner starts
but never sends the terminating line:
220 ready
then parseControlResponse() treats the accumulated multiline data as incomplete and returns it as rest.
Because _onControlSocketData() feeds _partialResponse + chunk back into the parser on every new data event, the client repeatedly reparses a growing attacker-controlled buffer. This creates both memory growth and increasing parsing work.
Why this is security-relevant
The vulnerable component is a client library. The attacker does not need to authenticate to the victim system and does not need valid FTP credentials.
The attack occurs automatically when an application using basic-ftp connects to a malicious or compromised FTP server. The malicious response is sent as the FTP server banner before login. No additional user interaction is required after the application initiates a normal FTP connection.
This is realistic for applications that use FTP for:
- scheduled imports or exports
- customer-provided FTP endpoints
- backup or synchronization jobs
- CI/CD artifact mirroring
- document ingestion pipelines
- legacy business integrations
In those environments, one malicious or compromised FTP endpoint can cause the Node.js process using basic-ftp to consume excessive memory and CPU or remain stuck in a pending connection state.
Proof of Concept
The PoC uses a local malicious FTP server that accepts a victim connection and sends an unterminated multiline FTP banner. The banner starts with 220-, but the server never sends the required terminating 220 line.
Reproduction steps
From the root of the basic-ftp project:
npm ci
npm run buildOnly
CHUNKS=1000 node poc_control_parser_direct.js | tee poc-results/parser_direct_1000.log
Run the end-to-end malicious FTP server PoC:
CHUNK_SIZE=8192 CHUNKS=1000 DELAY_MS=1 node poc_control_multiline_dos.js | tee poc-results/control_multiline_dos_1000.log
control_multiline_dos_1000.log
Observed result: parser-only PoC
[basic-ftp parseControlResponse incomplete multiline DoS]
Input fed: 7.81 MiB
Retained rest: 7.81 MiB
Initial rss/heap: 54.77 MiB 3.69 MiB
Final rss/heap: 141.64 MiB 80.77 MiB
This shows that parseControlResponse() retained the full unterminated multiline response as rest.
The retained buffer grew to 7.81 MiB. Heap usage increased from 3.69 MiB to 80.77 MiB, and RSS increased from 54.77 MiB to 141.64 MiB.
Observed result: end-to-end malicious FTP server PoC
[server] listening on 127.0.0.1:34429
[server] victim connected
[progress] chunks=850 sent=6.6 MiB partialResponse=6.6 MiB heapUsed=227.5 MiB rss=292.4 MiB
[progress] chunks=900 sent=7.0 MiB partialResponse=7.0 MiB heapUsed=213.1 MiB rss=278.0 MiB
[final-before-close] chunks=1000 sent=7.8 MiB partialResponse=7.8 MiB heapUsed=82.1 MiB rss=146.8 MiB
[result] client connect() is still pending because the multiline response never terminated
Only 7.8 MiB of malicious control-channel data was sent. The client retained 7.8 MiB in _partialResponse, showed large memory spikes, and remained pending inside connect() because the multiline response was never terminated.
Expected behavior
The client should enforce a maximum size for incomplete FTP control responses. If the accumulated multiline response exceeds a safe limit, the client should close the connection and reject the active task with an error.
The client should not allow a remote FTP server to make _partialResponse grow without bound.
Actual behavior
A malicious FTP server can keep the client in a pending connection state by sending an unterminated multiline control response. basic-ftp continues buffering and reparsing the accumulated data without a maximum response size.
Impact
A malicious or compromised FTP server can cause denial of service in applications using basic-ftp.
Possible real-world impact includes:
- Node.js process memory exhaustion
- container OOM kill
- worker crash or restart loop
- event loop CPU pressure due to repeated reparsing
- stuck FTP jobs
- queue backlog in scheduled import/export systems
- degraded availability of services relying on automated FTP ingestion
Threat model
The attacker controls, compromises, or can impersonate an FTP server that a victim application connects to.
Examples:
- A SaaS application allows customers to configure external FTP endpoints for automated imports.
- A backend job periodically pulls files from partner FTP servers.
- A document ingestion pipeline connects to FTP endpoints supplied by external users.
- A legacy integration uses FTP for scheduled synchronization.
- A build or deployment pipeline mirrors artifacts from an FTP server.
In each case, the victim application initiates a normal FTP connection. The malicious server sends an unterminated multiline banner before authentication. The vulnerable client then buffers and reparses the response indefinitely.
No FTP credentials are required for exploitation because the attack happens before login.
Suggested fix
Introduce a maximum control response buffer size, especially for incomplete multiline responses.
Recommended changes:
- Add a
maxControlResponseBytesormaxControlResponseLengthlimit. - Enforce the limit before or immediately after appending new control-channel data.
- Close the connection and reject the active task when the limit is exceeded.
- Add regression tests for unterminated multiline responses.
Example defensive logic:
if (completeResponse.length > maxControlResponseLength) {
closeWithError(new Error("FTP control response exceeded maximum allowed size"))
}
A regression test should verify that a response beginning with 220- and never terminating with 220 is rejected after the configured size limit instead of being retained indefinitely.
Suggested regression test scenario
A test server should:
- Accept a client connection.
- Send an FTP multiline response opener such as
220-malicious banner\r\n. - Continue sending additional lines without ever sending the terminating
220line. - Verify that the client rejects the connection once the configured response-size limit is exceeded.
- Verify that
_partialResponsedoes not grow without bound.
Credit request
If you publish an advisory or assign a CVE, please credit me as:
Ali Firas (thesmartshadow) - https://www.smartshadow.dev
Affected versions
npm
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 → 5.3.1
- npm
npm install basic-ftp@5.3.1- yarn
yarn add basic-ftp@5.3.1- pnpm
pnpm add basic-ftp@5.3.1
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
Advisories
Packages
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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-rp42-5vxx-qpwr basic-ftp vulnerable to denial of service via unbounded memory consumption in Client.list() | 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: thesmartshadow
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