GHSA-w5hq-g745-h8pq
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
v3, v5, and v6 accept external output buffers but do not reject out-of-range writes (small buf or large offset).
By contrast, v4, v1, and v7 explicitly throw RangeError on invalid bounds.
This inconsistency allows silent partial writes into caller-provided buffers.
Affected code
src/v35.ts(v3/v5path) writesbuf[offset + i]without bounds validation.src/v6.tswritesbuf[offset + i]without bounds validation.
Reproducible PoC
cd /home/StrawHat/uuid
npm ci
npm run build
node --input-type=module -e "
import {v4,v5,v6} from './dist-node/index.js';
const ns='6ba7b810-9dad-11d1-80b4-00c04fd430c8';
for (const [name,fn] of [
['v4',()=>v4({},new Uint8Array(8),4)],
['v5',()=>v5('x',ns,new Uint8Array(8),4)],
['v6',()=>v6({},new Uint8Array(8),4)],
]) {
try { fn(); console.log(name,'NO_THROW'); }
catch(e){ console.log(name,'THREW',e.name); }
}"
Observed:
v4 THREW RangeErrorv5 NO_THROWv6 NO_THROW
Example partial overwrite evidence captured during audit:
same true buf [
170, 170, 170, 170,
75, 224, 100, 63
]
v6 [
187, 187, 187, 187,
31, 19, 185, 64
]
Security impact
- Primary: integrity/robustness issue (silent partial output).
- If an application assumes full UUID writes into preallocated buffers, this can produce malformed/truncated/partially stale identifiers without error.
- In systems where caller-controlled offsets/buffer sizes are exposed indirectly, this may become a security-relevant logic flaw.
Suggested fix
Add the same guard used by v4/v1/v7:
if (offset < 0 || offset + 16 > buf.length) {
throw new RangeError(`UUID byte range ${offset}:${offset + 15} is out of buffer bounds`);
}
Apply to:
src/v35.ts(coversv3andv5)src/v6.ts
GitHub
CVSS SCORE
6.3medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | npm | - | - | <14.0.0 | 14.0.0 |
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 depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: A race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability. The successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker. The attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful. Network injection. The attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
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.
Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.