GHSA-65X3-RW7Q-GX94

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-18 17:40 – Updated: 2026-05-18 17:40
VLAI?
Summary
multiparty vulnerable to ReDoS via filename parsing
Details

Impact

multiparty@4.2.3 and lower versions are vulnerable to denial of service via regular expression backtracking in the Content-Disposition filename parameter parser. A multipart upload with a long header value containing !filename="1 repeated can cause regex matching to take seconds, blocking the event loop. Any service accepting multipart uploads via multiparty is affected.

Patches

Users should upgrade to multiparty@4.3.0 or higher.

Workarounds

None. Limiting upload sizes at the proxy/gateway layer reduces but does not eliminate the attack surface, since a small ~8 KB header is sufficient to trigger the vulnerable backtracking.

Resources

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.2.3"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "multiparty"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "4.3.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-8159"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-1333"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-18T17:40:10Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-05-12T10:16:48Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\n\nmultiparty@4.2.3 and lower versions are vulnerable to denial of service via regular expression backtracking in the `Content-Disposition` filename parameter parser. A multipart upload with a long header value containing `!filename=\"1` repeated can cause regex matching to take seconds, blocking the event loop. Any service accepting multipart uploads via multiparty is affected.\n\n### Patches\n\nUsers should upgrade to multiparty@4.3.0 or higher.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nNone. Limiting upload sizes at the proxy/gateway layer reduces but does not eliminate the attack surface, since a small ~8 KB header is sufficient to trigger the vulnerable backtracking.\n\n### Resources\n\n- [OWASP: Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)](https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/Regular_expression_Denial_of_Service_-_ReDoS)",
  "id": "GHSA-65x3-rw7q-gx94",
  "modified": "2026-05-18T17:40:10Z",
  "published": "2026-05-18T17:40:10Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pillarjs/multiparty/security/advisories/GHSA-65x3-rw7q-gx94"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-8159"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cna.openjsf.org/security-advisories.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/pillarjs/multiparty"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pillarjs/multiparty/releases/tag/v4.3.0"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/Regular_expression_Denial_of_Service_-_ReDoS"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "multiparty vulnerable to ReDoS via filename parsing"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…