RUSTSEC-2026-0194
ADVISORY - rustsecSummary
BytesStart::attributes() returns an Attributes iterator which, by default
(with_checks(true)), rejects a start tag that repeats an attribute name. For
each attribute yielded, the iterator compared the new name against every name
seen so far in the same tag using a linear scan, so a start tag with N
distinct attribute names cost O(N²) byte comparisons. There was no bound on
N other than the size of the buffered start tag.
Impact
Any code that parses untrusted XML and iterates a start tag's attributes with
the default duplicate check enabled can be made to spend CPU time quadratic in
the number of attributes on a single tag. Because the check is pure computation
with no .await/I/O, an I/O-based timeout on the consumer (for example a read
or request timeout) cannot interrupt it while it runs.
Measured cost of a single start tag, release build:
| Attributes on one tag | Time |
|---|---|
| 80,000 | ~6 s |
| 800,000 | ~10 min |
The cost grows with the square of the attribute count, so a start tag of a few tens of megabytes can stall a parsing thread for hours. No memory is exhausted and the parser does not crash; the effect is CPU exhaustion on the thread doing the parsing: a single crafted start tag can pin a CPU core for minutes to hours, denying service to that worker. A deployment that places a wall-clock bound on parsing, or confines it to a non-critical thread, may consider the availability impact lower.
Affected code paths
BytesStart::attributes()/Attributesiterated with checks enabled (the default), andBytesStart::try_get_attribute.NsReader, which resolves namespaces by iterating a tag's attributes and so reaches the same check internally.
Consumers that iterate attributes with .attributes().with_checks(false) and do
not use NsReader are not affected.
This was reported as reachable by a remote, unauthenticated attacker in a
real-world RPKI relying party (NLnet Labs Routinator) via a crafted RRDP
snapshot.xml.
Remediation
Upgrade to quick-xml >= 0.41.0, where the duplicate check keeps the linear
scan for start tags with a small number of attributes and switches to an O(1)
hash pre-filter above a threshold, making the whole tag O(N). The reported
AttrError::Duplicated positions are unchanged.
If upgrading is not possible and duplicate-name detection is not required,
disable it with .attributes().with_checks(false) (this does not help
NsReader consumers, which have no equivalent opt-out before 0.41.0).
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
RustSec
3.9
CVSS SCORE
7.5high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| quick-xml | cargo | - | - | <0.41.0 | 0.41.0 |
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.