4 via 4 paths







Find, fix and prevent vulnerabilities in your code.

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 0
  • 0

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: aws-sdk
  • Introduced through: aws-sdk@2.447.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: @chevre/factory@chevre-jp/factory#63d9528baa5d41fc48da09e63d740249efa76941 aws-sdk@2.447.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to aws-sdk@2.814.0.


Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. If an attacker submits a malicious INI file to an application that parses it with loadSharedConfigFiles , they will pollute the prototype on the application. This can be exploited further depending on the context.

PoC by Eugene Lim:


polluted = "polluted"


var fs = require('fs')
var sharedIniFileLoader = require('@aws-sdk/shared-ini-file-loader')

async function main() {
var parsed = await sharedIniFileLoader.loadSharedConfigFiles({ filepath: './payload.toml' })

> node poc.js
configFile: { default: { region: 'ap-southeast-1' } },
credentialsFile: {}
{ polluted: '"polluted"' }
{ polluted: '"polluted"' }


Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as _proto_, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.

There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge
  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

    if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source

      merge(target[property], source[property])


      target[property] = source[property]

When the source object contains a property named _proto_ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.

Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).

lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.

Property definition by path

There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)

If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to _proto_.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.

Types of attacks

There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:

Type Origin Short description
Denial of service (DoS) Client This is the most likely attack.
DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf).
The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service.
For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail.
Remote Code Execution Client Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.
For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.
Property Injection Client The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.
For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges.

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server
  • Web server

How to prevent

  1. Freeze the prototype— use Object.freeze (Object.prototype).
  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.
  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
  4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.
  5. As a best practice use Map instead of Object.

For more information on this vulnerability type:

Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018


Upgrade aws-sdk to version 2.814.0 or higher.


medium severity

Information Exposure

  • Vulnerable module: node-fetch
  • Introduced through: @surfrock/sdk@1.1.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: @chevre/factory@chevre-jp/factory#63d9528baa5d41fc48da09e63d740249efa76941 @surfrock/sdk@1.1.0 isomorphic-fetch@2.2.1 node-fetch@1.7.3


node-fetch is a light-weight module that brings window.fetch to node.js

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Information Exposure when fetching a remote url with Cookie, if it get a Location response header, it will follow that url and try to fetch that url with provided cookie. This can lead to forwarding secure headers to 3th party.


Upgrade node-fetch to version 2.6.7, 3.1.1 or higher.


medium severity

Denial of Service

  • Vulnerable module: node-fetch
  • Introduced through: @surfrock/sdk@1.1.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: @chevre/factory@chevre-jp/factory#63d9528baa5d41fc48da09e63d740249efa76941 @surfrock/sdk@1.1.0 isomorphic-fetch@2.2.1 node-fetch@1.7.3


node-fetch is a light-weight module that brings window.fetch to node.js

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service. Node Fetch did not honor the size option after following a redirect, which means that when a content size was over the limit, a FetchError would never get thrown and the process would end without failure.


Upgrade node-fetch to version 2.6.1, 3.0.0-beta.9 or higher.


medium severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: content-type-parser
  • Introduced through: @surfrock/sdk@1.1.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: @chevre/factory@chevre-jp/factory#63d9528baa5d41fc48da09e63d740249efa76941 @surfrock/sdk@1.1.0 @surfrock/abstract-sdk@1.2.0 @motionpicture/mvtk-reserve-service@1.4.0 soap@0.43.0 content-type-parser@1.0.2


content-type-parser is a Parse the value of the Content-Type header. content-type-parser package has been replaced by whatwg-mimetype.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). It used a regular expression (/^(.*?)\/(.*?)([\t ]*;.*)?$/) in order to parse user agents. This can cause a very moderate impact of about 4 seconds matching time for data 30k characters long.

Note: content-type-parser has been replaced by the whatwg-mimetype package and the fix for this vulnerability can be found within whatwg-mimetype.


Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.

The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.

Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:

regex = /A(B|C+)+D/

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

  • A The string must start with the letter 'A'
  • (B|C+)+ The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the + matches one or more times). The + at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.
  • D Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'

The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD

It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:

0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total

1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total

The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.

Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.

Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:

  1. CCC
  2. CC+C
  3. C+CC
  4. C+C+C.

The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.

From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.

String Number of C's Number of steps
ACCCX 3 38

By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.


There is no fixed version for content-type-parser.