GHSA-gq3j-xvxp-8hrf
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
The basicAuth and bearerAuth middlewares previously used a comparison that was not fully timing-safe.
The timingSafeEqual function used normal string equality (===) when comparing hash values. This comparison may stop early if values differ, which can theoretically cause small timing differences.
The implementation has been updated to use a safer comparison method.
Details
The issue was caused by the use of normal string equality (===) when comparing hash values inside the timingSafeEqual function.
In JavaScript, string comparison may stop as soon as a difference is found. This means the comparison time can slightly vary depending on how many characters match.
Under very specific and controlled conditions, this behavior could theoretically allow timing-based analysis.
The implementation has been updated to:
- Avoid early termination during comparison
- Use a constant-time-style comparison method
Impact
This issue is unlikely to be exploited in normal environments.
It may only be relevant in highly controlled situations where precise timing measurements are possible.
This change is considered a security hardening improvement. Users are encouraged to upgrade to the latest version.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Observable Timing Discrepancy
GitHub
2.2
CVSS SCORE
3.7low| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hono | npm | - | - | <4.11.10 | 4.11.10 |
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).
A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control, requiring investing a measurable amount of effort in research, preparation, or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack.
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 some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
There is no loss of trust or accuracy within the impacted component.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.