CVE-2026-42338
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
Address6.group() and Address6.link() do not HTML-escape attacker-controlled content before embedding it in the HTML strings they return, and AddressError.parseMessage (emitted by the Address6 constructor for invalid input) can contain unescaped attacker-controlled content in one branch. An application that (1) passes untrusted input to Address6 and (2) renders the output of these methods, or the thrown error's parseMessage, as HTML (e.g. via innerHTML) is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. A related issue in v6.helpers.spanAll() produced malformed markup but was not exploitable; it is hardened in the same release for consistency.
Details
Four related issues were identified and fixed together:
Address6.group(): zone ID injection. TheAddress6constructor stores the raw input (including any IPv6 zone ID) inthis.addressbefore zone stripping.group()then passedthis.addresstohelpers.simpleGroup(), which wrapped each:-separated segment in a<span>element without HTML-escaping the content. A zone ID containing HTML markup was embedded verbatim.Address6.link({ prefix, className }): attribute-value injection.link()concatenated user-suppliedprefixandclassNameinto thehref="…"andclass="…"attributes without escaping. A caller passing untrusted content through these options could inject event handlers (e.g.onmouseover) and achieve XSS.Address6constructor: leading-zero IPv4 error path. The leading-zero branch inparse4in6()builtAddressError.parseMessageby concatenating the raw address throughString.replace(). Becauseparse4in6()runs before the bad-character check, any characters in the groups preceding the IPv4 suffix flowed into the error's HTML unescaped. Consumers who renderparseMessageas HTML (its documented purpose — it already contains<span class="parse-error">markup) could be XSS'd by a crafted input such as<img src=x onerror=alert(1)>:10.0.01.1.v6.helpers.spanAll(): attribute-value injection (defense in depth).spanAll()embedded each character of its input into aclass="digit value-${n} …"attribute without escaping. Becausesplit('')limitsnto a single character this was not exploitable in practice, but it produced malformed markup and is fixed for consistency.
Affected Versions
All versions up to and including 10.1.0.
Patched Version
10.1.1.
Impact
Real-world exposure is believed to be extremely limited. Analysis of all 425 dependent npm packages as well as GitHub code search found zero consumers of group(), link(), or spanAll(): these HTML-emitting surfaces appear to be unused across published npm packages and public repositories. Applications using only the address-parsing and comparison APIs (isValid, correctForm, isInSubnet, bigInt, etc.) are not affected.
Consumers who do render the output of group(), link(), spanAll(), or AddressError.parseMessage as HTML against untrusted input should upgrade.
PoC
const { Address6 } = require('ip-address');
const addr = new Address6('fe80::1%<img src=x onerror=alert(1)>');
document.body.innerHTML = addr.group(); // fires the onerror handler in 10.1.0
Workarounds
If users cannot upgrade immediately:
- Do not pass untrusted input to the
Address6constructor, or - Never render the output of
group(),link(), orspanAll(), nor theparseMessagefield of any thrownAddressError, as HTML; treat these values as text only, or run them through DOMPurify before inserting into the DOM (DOMPurify's default configuration preserves the library's intended<span>wrapping while stripping any injected event handlers), or - Validate input with
Address6.isValid()and reject anything that contains a zone identifier (a%character) or characters outside[0-9a-fA-F:/]before passing it to the constructor.
Lack of separate CVEs
Given the evidence that these methods are not used, and given that they are all of the same construction, maintainers do not think it's relevant or useful to create a separate CVE for each library method.
Credit
ip-address thanks @scovetta for reporting this issue.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
GitHub
-
CVSS SCORE
5.3medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ip-address | npm | - | - | <=10.1.0 | 10.1.1 |
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.
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker's payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system. Examples include: utilizing a website that has been modified to display malicious content when the page is rendered (most stored XSS or CSRF) running an application that calls a malicious binary that has been planted on the system using an application which generates traffic over an untrusted or compromised network (vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
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 Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to 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 no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
minimos
MINI-54x7-2786-7jv7
-
minimos
MINI-95v4-j858-gxmx
-
minimos
MINI-cgrw-5mc2-m3g6
-
minimos
MINI-hpj7-q63c-4rfj
-
minimos
MINI-jgvr-73c3-wr98
-
minimos
MINI-mq2c-xp56-qmw5
-
minimos
MINI-p94f-xfqw-wqcp
-
minimos
MINI-rm3r-pc5g-j5g9
-
minimos
MINI-vm6q-prmg-96rc
-
minimos
MINI-w6qj-x25x-cxpm
-