Skip to content

GHSA-w5hq-g745-h8pq CVE-2026-41907 CVE-2026-41988

uuid: Missing buffer bounds check in v3/v5/v6 when buf is provided

Medium npm
Severity
6.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.35%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 28.64% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write
CWE-1285 Improper Validation of Specified Index, Position, or Offset in Input
Fix
12.0.1
Upgrade uuid to this version or later

Description

Summary

The v3(), v5(), and v6() API methods (not uuid release versions) accept external output buffers but do not reject out-of-range writes (small buf or large offset).
By contrast, v4(), v1(), and v7() API methods explicitly throw RangeError on invalid bounds.

This inconsistency allows silent partial writes into caller-provided buffers.

Affected code

  • src/v35.ts (v3()/v5() path) writes buf[offset + i] without bounds validation.
  • src/v6.ts writes buf[offset + i] without bounds validation.

Reproducible PoC

cd /home/StrawHat/uuid
npm ci
npm run build

node --input-type=module -e "
import {v4,v5,v6} from './dist-node/index.js';
const ns='6ba7b810-9dad-11d1-80b4-00c04fd430c8';
for (const [name,fn] of [
  ['v4()',()=>v4({},new Uint8Array(8),4)],
  ['v5()',()=>v5('x',ns,new Uint8Array(8),4)],
  ['v6()',()=>v6({},new Uint8Array(8),4)],
]) {
  try { fn(); console.log(name,'NO_THROW'); }
  catch(e){ console.log(name,'THREW',e.name); }
}"

Observed:

  • v4() THREW RangeError
  • v5() NO_THROW
  • v6() NO_THROW

Example partial overwrite evidence captured during audit:

same true buf [
  170, 170, 170, 170,
   75, 224, 100,  63
]
v6 [
  187, 187, 187, 187,
   31,  19, 185,  64
]

Security impact

  • Primary: integrity/robustness issue (silent partial output).
  • If an application assumes full UUID writes into preallocated buffers, this can produce malformed/truncated/partially stale identifiers without error.
  • In systems where caller-controlled offsets/buffer sizes are exposed indirectly, this may become a security-relevant logic flaw.

Suggested fix

Add the same guard used by v4()/v1()/v7():

if (offset < 0 || offset + 16 > buf.length) {
  throw new RangeError(`UUID byte range ${offset}:${offset + 15} is out of buffer bounds`);
}

Apply to:

  • src/v35.ts (covers v3() and v5())
  • src/v6.ts

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
uuid
>= 12.0.0, < 12.0.1
12.0.1
uuid
>= 13.0.0, < 13.0.1
13.0.1
uuid
< 11.1.1
11.1.1
uuid
< 11.1.1
11.1.1
uuid
>= 12.0.0, < 12.0.1
12.0.1
uuid
>= 13.0.0, < 13.0.1
13.0.1

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.

uuid npm → 12.0.1

npm
npm install uuid@12.0.1
yarn
yarn add uuid@12.0.1
pnpm
pnpm add uuid@12.0.1

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 6.3

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write

The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
  • Operation, Build and Compilation: Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.
  • Implementation: Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application's memory: Double check that the buffer is as large as specified. When using functions that accept a number of bytes to copy, such as strncpy(), be aware that if the destination buffer size is equal to the source buffer size, it may not NULL-terminate the string. Check buffer boundaries if accessing the buffer in a loop and make sure there is no danger of writing past the allocated space. If necessary, truncate all input strings to a reasonable length before passing them to the copy and concatenation functions.
  • Operation, Build and Compilation: Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code. Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking. For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].
  • Operation: Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment. For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].
  • Implementation: Replace unbounded copy functions with analogous functions that support length arguments, such as strcpy with strncpy. Create these if they are not available.

CWE-1285: Improper Validation of Specified Index, Position, or Offset in Input

The product receives input that is expected to specify an index, position, or offset into an indexable resource such as a buffer or file, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the specified index/position/offset has the required properties.

How to prevent it
  • 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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-78g4-xqwv-q3g8
Pillow: Bundled libopenjp2 2.5.4 in all wheels since 11.1.0 carries OSV-2025-219 heap-buffer-overflow write reachable from Image.open().load()
High Same weakness, CWE-787
GHSA-9v8h-qqgm-4m35
Brotli: Out-of-bounds write in the Brotli decoder ("Node2Shell") also affects the PyPI Brotli package
Critical Known exploited Same weakness, CWE-787
GHSA-g7cr-3p24-7wf7
Pillow: Heap buffer overflow writing JPEG comment after ICC profile fills buffer
High Same weakness, CWE-787
GHSA-v9pv-5gc8-w2m6
Pillow multi-frame loaders can reuse stale native image storage after mode transitions
Critical Same weakness, CWE-787
GHSA-5x8w-8jj5-q52h
Pillow: Heap buffer overflow in FlashPix (FPX) JPEG decoding leads to code execution
Critical Same weakness, CWE-787
GHSA-58r4-6rv3-gfh8
Pillow: Out-of-bounds access in _imagingmorph on a zero-width image
High Same weakness, CWE-787
GHSA-g44w-h65v-4cw9
Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-96235 - .NET and Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
High Same weakness, CWE-787
GHSA-87vj-4hqv-22p9
Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-96233 - .NET and Visual Studio Denial of Service Vulnerability
High Same weakness, CWE-787

Credits: 0xStraw-Hat, c-harding, frattaro, julianladisch, jwasnoggin, mhassan1, milenkotomic, uniabis

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