CVE-2026-24001
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Impact
Attempting to parse a patch whose filename headers contain the line break characters \r, \u2028, or \u2029 can cause the parsePatch method to enter an infinite loop. It then consumes memory without limit until the process crashes due to running out of memory.
Applications are therefore likely to be vulnerable to a denial-of-service attack if they call parsePatch with a user-provided patch as input. A large payload is not needed to trigger the vulnerability, so size limits on user input do not provide any protection. Furthermore, some applications may be vulnerable even when calling parsePatch on a patch generated by the application itself if the user is nonetheless able to control the filename headers (e.g. by directly providing the filenames of the files to be diffed).
The applyPatch method is similarly affected if (and only if) called with a string representation of a patch as an argument, since under the hood it parses that string using parsePatch. Other methods of the library are unaffected.
Finally, a second and lesser bug - a ReDOS - also exhibits when those same line break characters are present in a patch's patch header (also known as its "leading garbage"). A maliciously-crafted patch header of length n can take parsePatch O(n³) time to parse.
Patches
All vulnerabilities described are fixed in v8.0.3.
Workarounds
If using a version of jsdiff earlier than v8.0.3, do not attempt to parse patches that contain any of these characters: \r, \u2028, or \u2029.
References
PR that fixed the bug: https://github.com/kpdecker/jsdiff/pull/649
CVE Notes
Note that although the advisory describes two bugs, they each enable exactly the same attack vector (that an attacker who controls input to parsePatch can cause a DOS). Fixing one bug without fixing the other therefore does not fix the vulnerability and does not provide any security benefit. Therefore we assume that the bugs cannot possibly constitute Independently Fixable Vulnerabilities in the sense of CVE CNA rule 4.2.11, but rather that this advisory is properly construed under the rules as describing a single Vulnerability.
GitHub
CVSS SCORE
2.7low| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| diff | npm | - | - | >=6.0.0,<8.0.3 | 8.0.3 |
| diff | npm | - | - | <3.5.1 | 3.5.1 |
| diff | npm | - | - | >=4.0.0,<4.0.4 | 4.0.4 |
| diff | npm | - | - | >=5.0.0,<5.2.2 | 5.2.2 |
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.
Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
NIST
CVSS SCORE
2.7lowDebian
-
Ubuntu
3.9
CVSS SCORE
7.5mediumChainguard
CGA-442x-559x-8w92
-
Chainguard
CGA-x283-fg8c-84gh
-
minimos
MINI-35jw-mgqx-9wrm
-
minimos
MINI-4p83-vxvw-pcfh
-
minimos
MINI-75c8-3m5j-gqr7
-
minimos
MINI-f7q3-545q-ccx3
-
minimos
MINI-fcfp-f47m-6hff
-
minimos
MINI-p7gm-rqq5-3ph6
-
minimos
MINI-pw98-q6c2-w97p
-
minimos
MINI-xpcr-3wjr-628g
-