CVE-2026-69207
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
The built-in CORS middleware (hono/cors) parses the attacker-controlled Access-Control-Request-Headers request header during a preflight (OPTIONS) request using a regular expression whose running time is quadratic in the input length. A single request carrying a long run of whitespace can consume seconds of CPU, and repeated requests can render the service unresponsive. This parsing runs under the default configuration.
Details
On a CORS preflight, when allowHeaders is not configured - the default - the middleware reflects and parses the Access-Control-Request-Headers value. The parser used a whitespace-tolerant regular expression whose backtracking makes the work grow quadratically (O(n²)) with the length of the value when it contains a long whitespace sequence without a delimiter.
Because the header value is bounded only by the deployment's maximum HTTP header size, a single preflight can block request processing for a noticeable amount of time; on runtimes that share one execution thread across requests, this stalls concurrent requests as well. No authentication, special origin, or user interaction is required.
This issue arises for any application using cors() with the default (or an empty) allowHeaders. Applications that set a non-empty allowHeaders do not reach the affected path.
Impact
An unauthenticated attacker can send preflight requests that each consume disproportionate CPU relative to their size, degrading or denying service. This is a denial-of-service issue only; it does not expose or modify data.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity
GitHub
3.9
CVSS SCORE
5.3medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hono | npm | - | - | <4.12.34 | 4.12.34 |
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.