CVE-2025-15284
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
The arrayLimit option in qs does not enforce limits for bracket notation (a[]=1&a[]=2), allowing attackers to cause denial-of-service via memory exhaustion. Applications using arrayLimit for DoS protection are vulnerable.
Details
The arrayLimit option only checks limits for indexed notation (a[0]=1&a[1]=2) but completely bypasses it for bracket notation (a[]=1&a[]=2).
Vulnerable code (lib/parse.js:159-162):
if (root === '[]' && options.parseArrays) {
obj = utils.combine([], leaf); // No arrayLimit check
}
Working code (lib/parse.js:175):
else if (index <= options.arrayLimit) { // Limit checked here
obj = [];
obj[index] = leaf;
}
The bracket notation handler at line 159 uses utils.combine([], leaf) without validating against options.arrayLimit, while indexed notation at line 175 checks index <= options.arrayLimit before creating arrays.
PoC
Test 1 - Basic bypass:
npm install qs
const qs = require('qs');
const result = qs.parse('a[]=1&a[]=2&a[]=3&a[]=4&a[]=5&a[]=6', { arrayLimit: 5 });
console.log(result.a.length); // Output: 6 (should be max 5)
Test 2 - DoS demonstration:
const qs = require('qs');
const attack = 'a[]=' + Array(10000).fill('x').join('&a[]=');
const result = qs.parse(attack, { arrayLimit: 100 });
console.log(result.a.length); // Output: 10000 (should be max 100)
Configuration:
arrayLimit: 5(test 1) orarrayLimit: 100(test 2)- Use bracket notation:
a[]=value(not indexeda[0]=value)
Impact
Denial of Service via memory exhaustion. Affects applications using qs.parse() with user-controlled input and arrayLimit for protection.
Attack scenario:
- Attacker sends HTTP request:
GET /api/search?filters[]=x&filters[]=x&...&filters[]=x(100,000+ times) - Application parses with
qs.parse(query, { arrayLimit: 100 }) - qs ignores limit, parses all 100,000 elements into array
- Server memory exhausted → application crashes or becomes unresponsive
- Service unavailable for all users
Real-world impact:
- Single malicious request can crash server
- No authentication required
- Easy to automate and scale
- Affects any endpoint parsing query strings with bracket notation
Suggested Fix
Add arrayLimit validation to the bracket notation handler. The code already calculates currentArrayLength at line 147-151, but it's not used in the bracket notation handler at line 159.
Current code (lib/parse.js:159-162):
if (root === '[]' && options.parseArrays) {
obj = options.allowEmptyArrays && (leaf === '' || (options.strictNullHandling && leaf === null))
? []
: utils.combine([], leaf); // No arrayLimit check
}
Fixed code:
if (root === '[]' && options.parseArrays) {
// Use currentArrayLength already calculated at line 147-151
if (options.throwOnLimitExceeded && currentArrayLength >= options.arrayLimit) {
throw new RangeError('Array limit exceeded. Only ' + options.arrayLimit + ' element' + (options.arrayLimit === 1 ? '' : 's') + ' allowed in an array.');
}
// If limit exceeded and not throwing, convert to object (consistent with indexed notation behavior)
if (currentArrayLength >= options.arrayLimit) {
obj = options.plainObjects ? { __proto__: null } : {};
obj[currentArrayLength] = leaf;
} else {
obj = options.allowEmptyArrays && (leaf === '' || (options.strictNullHandling && leaf === null))
? []
: utils.combine([], leaf);
}
}
This makes bracket notation behaviour consistent with indexed notation, enforcing arrayLimit and converting to object when limit is exceeded (per README documentation).
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Improper Input Validation
Improper Input Validation
Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
GitHub
3.9
CVSS SCORE
8.7high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| qs | npm | - | - | <6.14.1 | 6.14.1 |
CVSS:4 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
The attacker is unauthenticated prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
NIST
3.9
CVSS SCORE
8.7highDebian
-
Ubuntu
-
CVSS SCORE
N/AmediumRed Hat
3.9
CVSS SCORE
7.5highChainguard
CGA-2xmq-258f-hwr2
-
Chainguard
CGA-6632-58pc-99c4
-
Chainguard
CGA-7fqq-c8pf-827j
-
Chainguard
CGA-7jm5-3j3p-wjcg
-
Chainguard
CGA-84gv-mffc-jrh2
-
Chainguard
CGA-fcrx-j379-xg2v
-
Chainguard
CGA-gpxj-r2m3-m6cm
-
Chainguard
CGA-jpmh-7ghg-8cr2
-
Chainguard
CGA-jwv9-77c2-p7p4
-
Chainguard
CGA-p4p8-689c-v8m4
-
Chainguard
CGA-qwmq-8x24-7gc7
-
Chainguard
CGA-vfq4-hhrf-934c
-
Chainguard
CGA-vjw5-pv6m-87q9
-
Chainguard
CGA-w9pp-j643-w8jj
-
Chainguard
CGA-wqvf-5f2q-jr8h
-
Chainguard
CGA-x345-fh92-pxw2
-
minimos
MINI-65p2-m2xq-gjv2
-
minimos
MINI-9cwv-g765-fcw6
-
minimos
MINI-9g82-6ghp-7pc5
-
minimos
MINI-c9gj-h97c-9hqm
-
minimos
MINI-gqwv-8r9g-8w5c
-
minimos
MINI-hx84-p2g2-85h6
-
minimos
MINI-m8vr-h9h6-wj2x
-
minimos
MINI-qgj5-jhr3-pg47
-
minimos
MINI-v26j-4xp8-852f
-