Skip to content

GHSA-w7fw-mjwx-w883 CVE-2026-2391

qs's arrayLimit bypass in comma parsing allows denial of service

Medium npm
Severity
6.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.54%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 45.58% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
Fix
6.14.2
Upgrade qs to this version or later

Description

Summary

The arrayLimit option in qs does not enforce limits for comma-separated values when comma: true is enabled, allowing attackers to cause denial-of-service via memory exhaustion. This is a bypass of the array limit enforcement, similar to the bracket notation bypass addressed in GHSA-6rw7-vpxm-498p (CVE-2025-15284).

Details

When the comma option is set to true (not the default, but configurable in applications), qs allows parsing comma-separated strings as arrays (e.g., ?param=a,b,c becomes ['a', 'b', 'c']). However, the limit check for arrayLimit (default: 20) and the optional throwOnLimitExceeded occur after the comma-handling logic in parseArrayValue, enabling a bypass. This permits creation of arbitrarily large arrays from a single parameter, leading to excessive memory allocation.

Vulnerable code (lib/parse.js: lines ~40-50):

if (val && typeof val === 'string' && options.comma && val.indexOf(',') > -1) {
    return val.split(',');
}

if (options.throwOnLimitExceeded && currentArrayLength >= options.arrayLimit) {
    throw new RangeError('Array limit exceeded. Only ' + options.arrayLimit + ' element' + (options.arrayLimit === 1 ? '' : 's') + ' allowed in an array.');
}

return val;

The split(',') returns the array immediately, skipping the subsequent limit check. Downstream merging via utils.combine does not prevent allocation, even if it marks overflows for sparse arrays.This discrepancy allows attackers to send a single parameter with millions of commas (e.g., ?param=,,,,,,,,...), allocating massive arrays in memory without triggering limits. It bypasses the intent of arrayLimit, which is enforced correctly for indexed (a[0]=) and bracket (a[]=) notations (the latter fixed in v6.14.1 per GHSA-6rw7-vpxm-498p).

PoC

Test 1 - Basic bypass:

npm install qs
const qs = require('qs');

const payload = 'a=' + ','.repeat(25);  // 26 elements after split (bypasses arrayLimit: 5)
const options = { comma: true, arrayLimit: 5, throwOnLimitExceeded: true };

try {
  const result = qs.parse(payload, options);
  console.log(result.a.length);  // Outputs: 26 (bypass successful)
} catch (e) {
  console.log('Limit enforced:', e.message);  // Not thrown
}

Configuration:

  • comma: true
  • arrayLimit: 5
  • throwOnLimitExceeded: true

Expected: Throws "Array limit exceeded" error. Actual: Parses successfully, creating an array of length 26.

Impact

Denial of Service (DoS) via memory exhaustion.

Suggested Fix

Move the arrayLimit check before the comma split in parseArrayValue, and enforce it on the resulting array length. Use currentArrayLength (already calculated upstream) for consistency with bracket notation fixes.

Current code (lib/parse.js: lines ~40-50):

if (val && typeof val === 'string' && options.comma && val.indexOf(',') > -1) {
    return val.split(',');
}

if (options.throwOnLimitExceeded && currentArrayLength >= options.arrayLimit) {
    throw new RangeError('Array limit exceeded. Only ' + options.arrayLimit + ' element' + (options.arrayLimit === 1 ? '' : 's') + ' allowed in an array.');
}

return val;

Fixed code:

if (val && typeof val === 'string' && options.comma && val.indexOf(',') > -1) {
    const splitArray = val.split(',');
    if (splitArray.length > options.arrayLimit - currentArrayLength) {  // Check against remaining limit
        if (options.throwOnLimitExceeded) {
            throw new RangeError('Array limit exceeded. Only ' + options.arrayLimit + ' element' + (options.arrayLimit === 1 ? '' : 's') + ' allowed in an array.');
        } else {
            // Optionally convert to object or truncate, per README
            return splitArray.slice(0, options.arrayLimit - currentArrayLength);
        }
    }
    return splitArray;
}

if (options.throwOnLimitExceeded && currentArrayLength >= options.arrayLimit) {
    throw new RangeError('Array limit exceeded. Only ' + options.arrayLimit + ' element' + (options.arrayLimit === 1 ? '' : 's') + ' allowed in an array.');
}

return val;

This aligns behavior with indexed and bracket notations, reuses currentArrayLength, and respects throwOnLimitExceeded. Update README to note the consistent enforcement.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
qs
>= 6.7.0, <= 6.14.1
No fix yet
qs
>= 6.7.0, < 6.14.2
6.14.2

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.

qs npm → 6.14.2

npm
npm install qs@6.14.2
yarn
yarn add qs@6.14.2
pnpm
pnpm add qs@6.14.2

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 6.3

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
Low
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 3.7

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

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

Weakness

CWE-20: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
  • Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • 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. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
  • Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-x5fp-wj9c-mxmx
qs array-limit bypass via bracket-key comma parsing
Medium Linked by the source
GHSA-6pq8-jhm2-2vcw
qs : qs.stringify with arrayFormat 'comma' throws an uncaught TypeError on array elements carrying a non-callable own toString (DoS)
Medium Also affects qs
GHSA-4mjr-xmp4-gh2g
qs: Denial of Service via Attacker Controlled isBuffer
Medium Also affects qs
GHSA-q8mj-m7cp-5q26
qs has a remotely triggerable DoS: qs.stringify crashes with TypeError on null/undefined entries in comma-format arrays when encodeValuesOnly is set
Medium Also affects qs
GHSA-6rw7-vpxm-498p
qs's arrayLimit bypass in its bracket notation allows DoS via memory exhaustion
Medium Also affects qs
GHSA-hrpp-h998-j3pp
qs vulnerable to Prototype Pollution
High Also affects qs
GHSA-gqgv-6jq5-jjj9
Prototype Pollution Protection Bypass in qs
High Also affects qs
GHSA-f9cm-p3w6-xvr3
Denial-of-Service Extended Event Loop Blocking in qs
High Also affects qs

Credits: SharokhAtaie, ljharb

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