CVE-2026-49476
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
The CSS selector parser in soupsieve (the CSS selector engine for Beautiful Soup 4) allocates unbounded memory when compiling large comma-separated selector lists. An attacker who can supply a crafted CSS selector string to soupsieve.compile() or Beautiful Soup's .select() / .select_one() can cause the application to allocate hundreds of megabytes of heap memory from a relatively small input, leading to memory exhaustion and denial of service.
To be completely transparent, AI tools helped surface this issue. However, it was independently reproduced and carefully validated. Researchers follow responsible disclosure practices and originally shared this report privately.
A 500 KB selector string triggers allocation of approximately 244 MB of heap memory - a 488x— amplification ratio**.
Details
Affected code: soupsieve/css_parser.py, lines ~204, 925, 1106
The soupsieve CSS parser splits comma-separated selector lists and creates one CSSSelector object per list item. Each CSSSelector object contains parsed selector data structures including SelectorList, Selector, and associated tag/attribute/pseudo-class metadata.
When a selector string such as a,a,a,... (with 250,000 comma-separated items) is passed to sv.compile(), the parser:
- Tokenises the entire string and identifies each comma-delimited segment (line ~1106)
- Parses each segment into a full
Selectorobject with all associated metadata (line ~925) - Stores all parsed selectors in a
SelectorList(line ~204)
Root cause: No limit is enforced on the number of selectors in a comma-separated list. The parser will attempt to parse and store an arbitrary number of selectors, with each selector object consuming approximately 976 bytes of heap memory. The total allocation scales linearly with the number of list items, but the amplification ratio (output memory / input bytes) is extremely high because each single-character selector like a expands into a complex object graph.
Attack surface: Any application that passes user-supplied CSS selectors to soupsieve.compile() or Beautiful Soup's .select() / .select_one().
Proof of Concept
import tracemalloc
import soupsieve as sv
tracemalloc.start()
# Build a 500 KB selector string: "a,a,a,...,a" (250,000 items)
count = 250_000
selector = ",".join("a" for _ in range(count))
print(f"Selector string size: {len(selector):,} bytes ({len(selector) / 1024:.0f} KB)")
# Compile the selector — this allocates ~244 MB
compiled = sv.compile(selector)
current, peak = tracemalloc.get_traced_memory()
tracemalloc.stop()
print(f"Compiled selector count: {len(compiled.selectors):,}")
print(f"Current memory: {current / 1024 / 1024:.1f} MB")
print(f"Peak memory: {peak / 1024 / 1024:.1f} MB")
print(f"Amplification ratio: {peak / len(selector):.0f}x")
# Expected output:
# Selector string size: 499,999 bytes (488 KB)
# Compiled selector count: 250,000
# Current memory: ~244 MB
# Peak memory: ~244 MB
# Amplification ratio: ~488x
Impact
Severity: High
An attacker can exhaust available memory on any server-side Python application that compiles user-supplied CSS selectors via soupsieve. This can cause:
- OOM kills in containerised deployments (Kubernetes pods, Docker containers) with memory limits
- Swap thrashing on bare-metal servers, degrading performance for all co-located processes
- Process termination via Python's
MemoryErrorexception if the system runs out of addressable memory
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Input size | ~500 KB selector string |
| Memory allocated | ~244 MB |
| Amplification ratio | ~488× |
| Per-object overhead | ~976 bytes per selector |
| Authentication required | None |
| User interaction required | None |
Scalability of attack: The memory allocation scales linearly - doubling the selector count doubles memory usage. An attacker can tune the payload to exactly exhaust a target's memory limits. Multiple concurrent requests multiply the effect.
Downstream exposure: soupsieve is an automatic dependency of beautifulsoup4, one of the most widely installed Python packages. Any web application accepting CSS selectors from users (e.g., web scraping APIs, content filtering tools, CMS preview features) is potentially affected.
Credit
Discovered by a security research team from the University of Sydney, focused on detecting open source software vulnerabilities. Liyi Zhou: https://lzhou1110.github.io/ Ziyue Wang: https://zyy0530.github.io/ Strick: https://str1ckl4nd.github.io/ Maurice: https://maurice.busystar.org/ Chenchen Yu: https://7thparkk.github.io/
GitHub
CVSS SCORE
7.5high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| soupsieve | pypi | - | - | <=2.8.3 | 2.8.4 |
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 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.
minimos
MINI-h7x5-466j-47m5
-
minimos
MINI-jpgq-cj2c-g48x
-
minimos
MINI-qgx4-w4xm-h7m5
-