CVE-2026-34043
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Impact
What kind of vulnerability is it?
It is a Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability caused by CPU exhaustion. When serializing a specially crafted "array-like" object (an object that inherits from Array.prototype but has a very large length property), the process enters an intensive loop that consumes 100% CPU and hangs indefinitely.
Who is impacted?
Applications that use serialize-javascript to serialize untrusted or user-controlled objects are at risk. While direct exploitation is difficult, it becomes a high-priority threat if the application is also vulnerable to Prototype Pollution or handles untrusted data via YAML Deserialization, as these could be used to inject the malicious object.
Patches
Has the problem been patched?
Yes, the issue has been patched by replacing instanceof Array checks with Array.isArray() and using Object.keys() for sparse array detection.
What versions should users upgrade to?
Users should upgrade to v7.0.5 or later.
Workarounds
Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?
There is no direct code-level workaround within the library itself. However, users can mitigate the risk by:
- Validating and sanitizing all input before passing it to the
serialize()function. - Ensuring the environment is protected against Prototype Pollution.
- Upgrading to
v7.0.5as soon as possible.
Acknowledgements
Serialize JavaScript thanks Tomer Aberbach (@TomerAberbach) for discovering and privately disclosing this issue.
GitHub
CVSS SCORE
5.9medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| serialize-javascript | npm | - | - | <7.0.5 | 7.0.5 |
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 only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
There is no loss of confidentiality.
There is no loss of trust or accuracy within the impacted component.
There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; 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 impacted component.