CVE-2026-85062
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Impact
colord's CSS color string matchers described a number as ([+-]?\d*\.?\d+). In that form \d* and \d+ can match the same digits, so a run of n digits can be divided between them in O(n²) ways, and rejecting an input retries every division. Parsing is synchronous and uninterruptible, so a long malformed color string blocks the thread:
| input | time to reject |
|---|---|
| 16 KB | 224 ms |
| 64 KB | 4.4 s |
| 128 KB | 18.5 s |
Reachable through colord() and getFormat(), and through any method that accepts a color string — including isEqual(), mix() and contrast(). The affected matchers are parseRgbaString and parseHslaString (built in) and parseHwbaString, parseLchaString, parseCmykaString (plugins).
Growth is polynomial, not exponential — multi-kilobyte payloads are required for a noticeable stall.
Who is affected
Applications that pass attacker-controlled strings of unbounded length to colord() — for example a server validating a color taken from a request body, JSON field, or uploaded stylesheet. colord applies no length limit before matching.
Typical client-side use with short input is not meaningfully affected.
Patches
Fixed in 2.9.4. The number is now written as ([+-]?(?:\d*\.\d+|\d+)), which accepts exactly the same syntax but leaves only one way to match it, making rejection linear — 1 MB of input is rejected in ~5 ms.
Workarounds
Reject or truncate color strings longer than a sane limit (e.g. 100 characters) before passing them to colord.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity
Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity
GitHub
-
CVSS SCORE
6.9medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| colord | npm | - | - | <2.9.4 | 2.9.4 |
CVSS:4 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 successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
The attacker is unauthenticated 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 human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
NIST
-