CVE-2026-44492
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
shouldBypassProxy, introduced in v1.15.0 to fix CVE-2025-62718, does not normalise IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. When NO_PROXY lists an IPv4 address such as 127.0.0.1 or 169.254.169.254, a request URL using the IPv4-mapped IPv6 form (::ffff:7f00:1, ::ffff:a9fe:a9fe) still routes through the configured proxy. Node.js resolves these addresses to the underlying IPv4 host, so the request reaches the internal service via the proxy rather than being blocked.
Details
lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js (v1.15.0):
const LOOPBACK_ADDRESSES = new Set(['localhost', '127.0.0.1', '::1']);
const isLoopback = (host) => LOOPBACK_ADDRESSES.has(host);
// normalizeNoProxyHost strips brackets and trailing dots, but not ::ffff: prefix
return hostname === entryHost || (isLoopback(hostname) && isLoopback(entryHost));
The WHATWG URL parser canonicalises http://[::ffff:127.0.0.1]/ to hostname [::ffff:7f00:1]. After bracket-stripping: ::ffff:7f00:1. This string does not match 127.0.0.1 in NO_PROXY and is not in LOOPBACK_ADDRESSES, so shouldBypassProxy returns false and the proxy is used. proxy-from-env (called before shouldBypassProxy) has the same gap - it does not equate ::ffff:7f00:1 with 127.0.0.1 - so neither layer catches the bypass.
PoC
// NO_PROXY=127.0.0.1,localhost,::1 HTTP_PROXY=http://attacker:8080
import shouldBypassProxy from 'axios/lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js';
// All three should return true (bypass proxy). Only the first two do.
console.log(shouldBypassProxy('http://127.0.0.1/')); // true [OK]
console.log(shouldBypassProxy('http://[::1]/')); // true [OK]
console.log(shouldBypassProxy('http://[::ffff:127.0.0.1]/')); // false <- bypass
console.log(shouldBypassProxy('http://[::ffff:7f00:1]/')); // false <- bypass
Node.js routes ::ffff:7f00:1 to 127.0.0.1:
// net.connect({ host: '::ffff:7f00:1', port: 80 }) reaches a service
// bound to 127.0.0.1:80 — confirmed on Node.js v24, Linux and macOS.
Cloud metadata SSRF: ::ffff:a9fe:a9fe = ::ffff:169.254.169.254. If NO_PROXY=169.254.169.254 is set to block IMDS access, a request to http://[::ffff:a9fe:a9fe]/latest/meta-data/ bypasses it.
Fix
Canonicalise IPv4-mapped IPv6 in normalizeNoProxyHost before any comparison:
const ipv4MappedDotted = /^::ffff:(\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3})$/i;
const ipv4MappedHex = /^::ffff:([0-9a-f]{1,4}):([0-9a-f]{1,4})$/i;
function hexToIPv4(a, b) {
const hi = parseInt(a, 16), lo = parseInt(b, 16);
return `${hi >> 8}.${hi & 0xff}.${lo >> 8}.${lo & 0xff}`;
}
const normalizeNoProxyHost = (hostname) => {
if (!hostname) return hostname;
if (hostname[0] === '[' && hostname.at(-1) === ']')
hostname = hostname.slice(1, -1);
hostname = hostname.replace(/\.+$/, '').toLowerCase();
let m;
if ((m = hostname.match(ipv4MappedDotted))) return m[1];
if ((m = hostname.match(ipv4MappedHex))) return hexToIPv4(m[1], m[2]);
return hostname;
};
Impact
Any application that sets NO_PROXY to exclude internal or metadata endpoints and uses an HTTP/HTTPS proxy can have those exclusions bypassed by a URL using IPv4-mapped IPv6 notation. The attacker must control the request URL. In cloud environments with instance metadata services, this can lead to credential exfiltration.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
GitHub
3.9
CVSS SCORE
8.6high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| axios | npm | - | - | >=1.0.0,<1.16.0 | 1.16.0 |
| axios | npm | - | - | <=0.31.1 | 0.32.0 |
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).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
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 a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component 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 no loss of trust or accuracy within the impacted component.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.