CVE-2026-73643
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
Parsing a small YAML document can take exponential time. An application that calls load() or loadAll() on untrusted input can be hung by a payload under 200 bytes.
Details
When an entry in a flow sequence turns out to be a key: value pair, the parser rewinds and parses that entry a second time as the key.
If the key is itself a nested flow sequence of the same shape, every level is parsed twice, so the total work is O(2^n) in the nesting depth. The default maxDepth of 100 does not help, because the time is already unmanageable at about 30 to 40 levels.
Root cause, potentially the: readFlowCollection in parser.ts, the restoreState followed by a second parseNode further down.
PoC
const yaml = require('js-yaml')
const n = 30
yaml.load('[ '.repeat(n) + '1' + ' ]: 0'.repeat(n))
With default options: 22 levels takes about 1 second, 26 levels about 17 seconds, 30 levels over 2 minutes. The input stays under 200 bytes and grows linearly with n.
Impact
Denial of service. A single small request can keep one CPU busy for minutes or longer and blocks the Node event loop, so one request can stall the whole process. No anchors, aliases, merges, tags, or non default options are required, and it reproduces on the default schema.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity
Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity
Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity
GitHub
3.9
CVSS SCORE
7.5high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| js-yaml | npm | - | - | >=5.0.0,<=5.2.1 | 5.2.2 |
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.
NIST
3.9
CVSS SCORE
7.5highDebian
-
CVSS SCORE
N/AlowUbuntu
-
CVSS SCORE
N/AmediumRed Hat
3.9
CVSS SCORE
7.5highChainguard
CGA-5wjg-hr4f-qx93
-