CVE-2026-53550
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
A crafted YAML document can trigger algorithmic CPU exhaustion in js-yaml merge-key processing (<<) by repeating the same alias many times in a merge sequence.
This causes quadratic parse-time behavior relative to input size and can block a Node.js worker/event loop for seconds with a relatively small payload (tens of KB), resulting in denial of service.
Details
The issue is in merge handling inside lib/loader.js:
storeMappingPair(...)iterates every element of a merge sequence when key tag istag:yaml.org,2002:merge.- For each element, it calls
mergeMappings(...). mergeMappings(...)computesObject.keys(source)and performs_hasOwnProperty.call(destination, key)checks for each key.
When input is of the form:
a: &a {k0:0, k1:0, ..., kK:0} b: {<<: [*a, *a, *a, ... repeated M times ...]} all *a entries refer to the same anchored object. After the first merge, subsequent merges are semantically no-ops, but the parser still reprocesses all keys each time. Resulting work is O(K * M), while input size is O(K + M), giving quadratic scaling as payload grows. Relevant code path: lib/loader.js in storeMappingPair(...) merge branch (keyTag === 'tag:yaml.org,2002:merge') lib/loader.js mergeMappings(...)
Root cause
File: lib/loader.js Function: storeMappingPair(state, _result, overridableKeys, keyTag, keyNode, valueNode, startLine, startLineStart, startPos) Lines: ~359-366
if (keyTag === 'tag:yaml.org,2002:merge') {
if (Array.isArray(valueNode)) {
for (index = 0, quantity = valueNode.length; index < quantity; index += 1) {
mergeMappings(state, _result, valueNode[index], overridableKeys);
}
} else {
mergeMappings(state, _result, valueNode, overridableKeys);
}
}
When the merge value is a sequence (YAML 1.1 <<: [ *a, *a, ... ]), each element is handed to mergeMappings() without deduplication. mergeMappings() then does
sourceKeys = Object.keys(source);
for (index = 0; index < sourceKeys.length; index += 1) {
key = sourceKeys[index];
if (!_hasOwnProperty.call(destination, key)) {
setProperty(destination, key, source[key]);
overridableKeys[key] = true;
}
}
Every alias reference in the sequence resolves (by design) to the SAME object via state.anchorMap. After the first merge, every subsequent merge of that same reference is a pure no-op semantically, but still performs:
- one Object.keys(source) call (O(K))
- K _hasOwnProperty.call checks on the destination
Total: M * K hasOwnProperty checks + M Object.keys allocations, while the final object and all observable side effects are identical to a single merge.
YAML semantics for <<: are idempotent and commutative over duplicate sources,
so collapsing duplicates preserves behavior exactly; this isn't a spec trade-off.
PoC
Environment: js-yaml version: 4.1.1 Node.js: v24.5.0 Platform: arm64 macOS (reproduced consistently) Reproduction script: Create many keys in one anchored map (&a). Merge that same alias repeatedly via <<: [*a, *a, ...]. Measure parse time and compare with control payload using single merge (<<: *a). Observed repeated runs (same machine): K=M=1000, input 9,909 bytes: ~33–36 ms K=M=2000, input 20,909 bytes: ~121–123 ms K=M=4000, input 42,909 bytes: ~524–537 ms K=M=6000, input 64,909 bytes: ~1,608–1,829 ms K=M=8000, input 86,909 bytes: ~3,395–3,565 ms Control (single merge, similar key counts): K=2000: ~1–2 ms K=4000: ~3 ms K=8000: ~5 ms Also verified: repeated-merge output equals single-merge output (same key count and same JSON), confirming excess time is redundant computation.
Impact
This is a denial-of-service vulnerability (CPU exhaustion / algorithmic complexity). Any service parsing untrusted YAML with js-yaml can be impacted, including API backends, CI tools, config processors, and automation services. An attacker can submit crafted YAML to significantly increase CPU time and reduce availability.
Suggested fix:
Dedupe the merge source list by reference before invoking mergeMappings. Any of the following are minimal and preserve YAML 1.1 merge semantics:
dedupe in storeMappingPair:
if (keyTag === 'tag:yaml.org,2002:merge') {
if (Array.isArray(valueNode)) {
var seen = new Set();
for (index = 0, quantity = valueNode.length; index < quantity; index += 1) {
var src = valueNode[index];
if (seen.has(src)) continue; // idempotent; skip redundant alias
seen.add(src);
mergeMappings(state, _result, src, overridableKeys);
}
} else {
mergeMappings(state, _result, valueNode, overridableKeys);
}
}
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity
GitHub
3.9
CVSS SCORE
5.3medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| js-yaml | npm | - | - | <=4.1.1 | 4.2.0 |
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 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.
Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Chainguard
CGA-hxp5-835r-fjv4
-
minimos
MINI-272r-8h37-wjj7
-
minimos
MINI-364m-8wpj-xm89
-
minimos
MINI-7qfg-7mpw-rf3v
-
minimos
MINI-888p-c7xg-5wx7
-
minimos
MINI-8qmv-8f9f-5w8v
-
minimos
MINI-9g35-c55q-6pp7
-
minimos
MINI-gppc-q7x2-vvc9
-
minimos
MINI-gvw3-65xm-2q4v
-
minimos
MINI-m4pr-jrc6-pwfg
-
minimos
MINI-mcgr-2qcc-rrw8
-
minimos
MINI-q3wh-9pw7-xxhx
-
minimos
MINI-v6cr-h2ch-jqrh
-
minimos
MINI-x3hq-j2f7-m3p5
-