[ericcornelissen]

Updates

• Affected products
• CVSS v3

Comments
No version of braces is affected by this. Observe the following two facts: 1) A RangeError in Node.js¹ is catchable. 2) The braces API may already throw errors. Therefore, on untrusted inputs, developers using braces should already be catching errors. Thus, the RangeError would also be caught. This invalidates the advisory's claim that this error "terminate[s] the Node.js process".

Footnotes

1. The only JavaScript runtime considered by the advisory itself. ↩

[smirowstanitzok]

+1 to this correction. Some additional evidence:

Maintainer position: The braces maintainer has addressed this report directly (micromatch/braces#70 (comment)): the nesting depth needed to overflow the stack is only reachable near the default 10,000-character limit, and the existing, documented maxLength option already bounds it. The proposed maxDepth fix (micromatch/braces#75) was withdrawn by its author on the same day, so no patched release is expected.

Reproduction (braces 3.0.3, Node.js 24.21.0, 10 fresh processes each, pattern '{'.repeat(d) + '}'.repeat(d)):

pattern length	braces()	braces.expand()	micromatch.isMatch()
7,000 chars (depth 3,500)	0/10 crashed	0/10	0/10
9,000 chars (depth 4,500)	1/10	5/10	0/10
10,000 chars (depth 5,000)	10/10	10/10	0/10

The failure only occurs close to the input-length cap, is non-deterministic below it, and is a catchable RangeError.

Reachability: micromatch's matching APIs (isMatch, micromatch(), matcher) go through picomatch and never call braces' recursive walkers; braces is only invoked via micromatch.braces()/expand()/parse(). fast-glob calls micromatch.braces() on the glob pattern supplied by the calling application, not on file names or other external data. The downstream reports in micromatch/braces#73 (Storybook, Stylelint, ESLint plugins, serverless-esbuild) are all build tooling with developer-defined patterns.

As published, the advisory produces a high-severity finding with no remediation path for a large part of the npm ecosystem, while the exploit precondition — letting untrusted users supply ~9,000-character glob patterns — is already a misuse of the library. Marking no version as affected (or withdrawing the advisory) seems appropriate.

[G-Rath]

Removing the last_affected event like this means that every version is marked as affected, since you still have the introduced: 0 event.

The proper way to get this addressed is to submit a request to the CNA to withdraw the advisory

[ArianeBouchardConformit]

(Once someone submits the request, please post here to keep people informed so that they don't receive duplicates.)

[matheusjost]

up

[ArianeBouchardConformit]

up

Are you trying to bump the thread or are you saying that you've made the request to remove the advisory?

[matheusjost]

up

Are you trying to bump the thread or are you saying that you've made the request to remove the advisory?

just saving to get notified on updates, sry
btw it seems @G-Rath already emailed CNA about the withdrawal micromatch/braces#73 (comment)

[elawad]

up

Are you trying to bump the thread or are you saying that you've made the request to remove the advisory?

just saving to get notified on updates, sry btw it seems @G-Rath already emailed CNA about the withdrawal micromatch/braces#73 (comment)

A tip, clicking the Subscribe button below will keep you updated.

[sanmai-NL]

The reported behavior is quite specific: an input that is still below the library's documented maxLength can create enough nesting to exhaust the JavaScript call stack in compile/expand. This isn't merely ’someone can give a function absurd input and make it throw‘, it bypasses the resource bound that the library already exposes specifically for potentially user-controlled patterns.

That distinction matters particularly because braces explicitly describes itself as safer for applications receiving aggressive or malicious brace patterns:

https://github.com/micromatch/braces/blob/c57d89e50aefa70a2f7463fdc785923321f1e62c/README.md:

Safer - You shouldn't have to worry about users defining aggressive or malicious brace patterns that can break your application. Braces takes measures to prevent malicious regex that can be used for DDoS attacks (see catastrophic backtracking).

If the position is instead that callers are responsible for ensuring brace patterns are trusted or have shallow nesting, that is a defensible API contract, but it would be different from what the current documentation suggests and should be stated explicitly. I'm not an experienced Node.js programmer but why doesn't the author simply accept his own responsibility to catch RangeError, rather than letting callers somehow guess braces does not protect them in this case?

There is also an important distinction between a vulnerability in the library and exploitability in every downstream application. braces is obviously not a network server by itself. A remotely exploitable DoS requires an application to pass attacker-controlled patterns into it. Many projects only use braces with repository-controlled globs and may therefore be effectively not affected. That is a good argument for contextualizing the CVSS rating and for downstream projects to document a ‘not affected’ determination. It is not an argument that uncontrolled recursion in the library cannot constitute a vulnerability at all.

[mrgrain]

I'm not an experienced Node.js programmer but why doesn't the author simply accept his own responsibility to catch RangeError, rather than letting callers somehow guess braces does not protect them in this case?

@sanmai-NL The CVE is based around the fact that a RangeError is thrown. This basically implies that the SyntaxError that is currently explicitly thrown if maxLength is exceeded, is somehow fundamentally better than the implicitly thrown RangeError. The argument made in the PR is that throwing a RangeError is standard behavior for Node programs.

braces currently does not document the exact error types thrown. It can only be determined by code inspection or experimentation that RangeError, TypeError and SyntaxError are the only thrown errors (as of 3.0.3).

To resolve the "vulnerability" as described by the CVE one of these would suffice:
(Edit: this is a non-exclusive list; other fixes are surely possible as well. I'm trying to make a point here that the whole thing is a non issue.)

• explicitly document that RangeError is thrown
• catch the RangeError and explicitly re-throw it as a (different?) error

This sounds to me like there is no fix that is substantially better than the proposed vulnerability.
To me, neither of these fixes improves on what the CVE claims to be a vulnerability. Therefore this is a non issue.

[sanmai-NL]

@mrgrain Can you rephrase your last sentence please?

[sanmai-NL]

I'm not an experienced Node.js programmer but why doesn't the author simply accept his own responsibility to catch RangeError, rather than letting callers somehow guess braces does not protect them in this case?

@sanmai-NL The CVE is based around the fact that a RangeError is thrown. This basically implies that the SyntaxError that is currently explicitly thrown if maxLength is exceeded, is somehow fundamentally better than the implicitly thrown RangeError. The argument made in the PR is that throwing a RangeError is standard behavior for Node programs.

There's no standard that requires to not catch an exception in this case. As I wrote, braces presents itself as safer, but it certainly isn't exception-safe:

Safer - You shouldn't have to worry about users defining aggressive or malicious brace patterns that can break your application.

Callers do have to worry for sure. Interesting also, how input sanitization of tainted data is presented as a use case for the library, while its maintainer @jonschklinkert, in defense against this CVE filing, claims:

For the same reason that you should not allow users to pass raw sql over http requests, you should not let users define regular expressions. If you are not letting users define regular expressions, then this CVE describes how you would attack yourself.

braces currently does not document the exact error types thrown. It can only be determined by code inspection or experimentation that RangeError, TypeError and SyntaxError are the only thrown errors (as of 3.0.3).

This is a weakness in itself, in particular given how braces is being marketed (see previous comment). Since Node.js doesn't have checked exceptions (like e.g., Java) nor static typing to avoid uncaught exceptions, having accurate documentation is a critical part of security-by-design.

To resolve the "vulnerability" as described by the CVE one of these woulds be suffice:

Of all the nuances stated in the thread, no sound argument has been presented that this isn't a vulnerability. Maybe its severity is overrated, maybe it's safe to say the exploitation conditions are unlikely, true.

Weakness in an information system, system security procedures, internal controls, or implementation that could be exploited or triggered by a threat source.

https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/vulnerability

An attribute or characteristic that may, under known or unknown conditions, render an entity, asset, system, network, or geographic area open to exploitation or susceptible to a given hazard.

https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/weakness

The essential issue is that the library is not secure by design (and little can be done about it, perhaps) but presented as such.

• explicitly document that RangeError is thrown

Documenting which exceptions are thrown does seem the best remediation. There are plenty of simple mitigations and remediations that the author could have applied straight away, rather then letting this escalate into security pipeline issues for so many people and organizations.

• catch the RangeError and explicitly re-throw it as a (different?) error

Outside Node.js, raising exceptions is for exceptional conditions. In this case, invalid input data is provided and a normal error-as-value return would not cause crashing Node.js.

[mrgrain]

This sounds to me like there is no fix that is substantially better than the proposed vulnerability.
To, me neither of these fixes improves on what the CVE claims to be a vulnerability.

Does this help?

This sounds to me like there is no fix that is substantially better than the proposed vulnerability.
To me, neither of these fixes improves on what the CVE claims to be a vulnerability. Therefore this is a non issue.

---

Outside Node.js, raising exceptions is for exceptional conditions. In this case, invalid input data is provided and a normal error-as-value return would not cause crashing Node.js.

I think people have different views on what "crashing Node.js" means. Note how JavaScript (and Node.js) calls these Error and not Exception. By definition are catchable runtime errors. This might be different to other programming languages. One can reasonably interpret that as "crashing Node.js", but one can also reasonable interpret this is as standard behavior. While I cannot speak for the whole community, from my experience error-as-value returns are not common in Node.js.

[ericcornelissen]

Removing the last_affected event like this means that every version is marked as affected, since you still have the introduced: 0 event.

That makes sense, I used GitHub's advisory improvement suggestion form to make this change and it spat out this diff. Since it's a branch on this repository I also can't edit it now...

[ericcornelissen]

For anyone that thinks this is a legitimate vulnerability, I have bad news... The following also causes the braces library to throw an exception that is not document anywhere:

$ node -e "require('braces')(JSON.parse('null'))"
[...]
TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'length')
[...]

anyone up for submitting a CVE for it? 🙃

[sanmai-NL]

If the author took care to address the previous one, this one couldn't be filed anymore. Maybe you find comfort in clowning about on this CVE but having it disappear won't solve this package's/Node.js common quality problems.

[ericcornelissen]

If the author took care to address the previous one, this one couldn't be filed anymore. Maybe you find comfort in clowning about on this CVE

Excuse my joking around, but it was the most concise way to make my point.

but having it disappear won't solve this package's/Node.js common quality problems.

Neither will this individual CVE address the ecosystem's quality problems. Moreover, the ecosystem has a solution for this: every package interacting with the network worth it's salt will catch any error for you and prevent your application from crashing.

On the other hand, noisy CVEs like this one waste time, energy, attention, and money. The result is that developers have a distaste for the security ecosystem, which makes it all the more difficult for the ecosystem as a whole to deal with "real", or at very least more relevant/pressing, security issues.

To add something more constructive to the discussion:

Of all the nuances stated in the thread, no sound argument has been presented that this isn't a vulnerability.

And neither has there been a sound argument presented that this is a vulnerability.

Documenting which exceptions are thrown does seem the best remediation.

I'm all for documenting this, but documenting it and then asking users to upgrade to the latest version just so they get the updated documentation seems pointless to me.

To resolve the "vulnerability" as described by the CVE one of these would be suffice:

I will say that I disagree with the author of this comment. It should be possible (in theory) to fix the reported bug and avoid the RangeError altogether (by switching to a non-recursive implementation). Yet, in that case it would be a regular bug fix and not a security fix.

The essential issue is that the library is not secure by design (and little can be done about it, perhaps) but presented as such.

From the evidence you, @sanmai-NL, provided, braces claims to be resistant to DoS attacks through ReDoS. ReDoS is very different from the kind of DoS reported by this advisory. In particular, for a ReDoS vulnerability there is no simple solution like try-catching the call to the "vulnerable" API, like you can do with a RangeError.

I'm not an experienced Node.js programmer but why doesn't the author simply accept his own responsibility to catch RangeError, rather than letting callers somehow guess braces does not protect them in this case?

And do what exactly?

[sanmai-NL]

If the author took care to address the previous one, this one couldn't be filed anymore. Maybe you find comfort in clowning about on this CVE

Excuse my joking around, but it was the most concise way to make my point.

but having it disappear won't solve this package's/Node.js common quality problems.

Neither will this individual CVE address the ecosystem's quality problems. Moreover, the ecosystem has a solution for this: every package interacting with the network worth it's salt will catch any error for you and prevent your application from crashing.

No individual CVE will address any ecosystems quality problem, so that point is moot. Interacting with the network should be broadened to accepting tainted data. This package, braces, then, oversells its qualities in promising developers not to worry about things they/their libraries/frameworks should worry about. Fix the docs and we're done ...

On the other hand, noisy CVEs like this one waste time, energy, attention, and money. The result is that developers have a distaste for the security ecosystem, which makes it all the more difficult for the ecosystem as a whole to deal with "real", or at very least more relevant/pressing, security issues.

While I agree with the critical sentiment, you don't provide evidence for this broad claim, and this case can be countered quite easily. The braces maintainer could have immediately fixed the docs, push a new version if need be, and be done with it. Instead he chose to argue and ridicule the many issues and comments this situation raised. Just as low as the barrier to CVE acceptance appears to be, from your viewpoint at least, could the remediation be.

To add something more constructive to the discussion:

Of all the nuances stated in the thread, no sound argument has been presented that this isn't a vulnerability.

And neither has there been a sound argument presented that this is a vulnerability.

The onus is on you, to support your argument that a vulnerability report, which details the claim, which was then accepted by at least one CVE-issuing authority, is indeed invalid. You and others here raise a few points, but should a CVE be retracted just after some backlash? I think there's a better chance the severity rating will be adjusted.

Documenting which exceptions are thrown does seem the best remediation.

I'm all for documenting this, but documenting it and then asking users to upgrade to the latest version just so they get the updated documentation seems pointless to me.

And why so? A large part of digital security is pointless to technically oriented people. All the process controls and certifications, all the posturing by vendors. Why should your and some other GitHubians viewpoint prevail in this larger context?

To resolve the "vulnerability" as described by the CVE one of these would be suffice:

I will say that I disagree with the author of this comment. It should be possible (in theory) to fix the reported bug and avoid the RangeError altogether (by switching to a non-recursive implementation). Yet, in that case it would be a regular bug fix and not a security fix.

It's a security improvement since it improves security by design, and it's a vulnerability remediation as long as the braces docs make misleading claims about its security properties.

The essential issue is that the library is not secure by design (and little can be done about it, perhaps) but presented as such.

From the evidence you, @sanmai-NL, provided, braces claims to be resistant to DoS attacks through ReDoS. ReDoS is very different from the kind of DoS reported by this advisory. In particular, for a ReDoS vulnerability there is no simple solution like try-catching the call to the "vulnerable" API, like you can do with a RangeError.

That's not entirely true. The maintainer claims very broadly:

You shouldn't have to worry about users defining aggressive or malicious brace patterns that can break your application.

... and then provides one example of a mitigation that's implemented. You see that as limitative, but the wording is ambiguous at the very least.

I'm not an experienced Node.js programmer but why doesn't the author simply accept his own responsibility to catch RangeError, rather than letting callers somehow guess braces does not protect them in this case?

And do what exactly?

As I wrote earlier, returning errors as values instead of propagating exceptions makes for more robust systems.

[lppedd]

noisy CVEs like this one waste time, energy, attention, and money

I've been replying to emails all past week from people asking me why this CVEBS isn't fixed yet. This is getting tiresome on all levels, and not only in this instance. It's getting worse and worse every day only to get a green check mark on a report and call it a day.

[ericcornelissen]

so that point is moot

Ok

Interacting with the network should be broadened to accepting tainted data. This package, braces, then, oversells its qualities in promising developers not to worry about things they/their libraries/frameworks should worry about. Fix the docs and we're done ...

Again, sure. No CVE needed.

While I agree with the critical sentiment, you don't provide evidence for this broad claim, and this case can be countered quite easily.

Fair enough, though I'm afraid it would be impossible for me to provide evidence for sentiment...

The braces maintainer could have immediately fixed the docs, push a new version if need be, and be done with it. Instead he chose to argue and ridicule the many issues and comments this situation raised. Just as low as the barrier to CVE acceptance appears to be, from your viewpoint at least, could the remediation be.

If you really believe it's OK for some random person to get a random CVE assigned to random projects and the best course of action is to waste the developer's time by making them do a release just to make the CVE machine happy then you and I are so fundamentally in disagreement that I don't see how any amount of discussion could lead to fruitful results.

The onus is on you

Why is that? Just because the CVE already exists as a result of a CVE-farming individual who convinced a numbering authority with no skin in the game to publish one?

In any case, let me spell out my argument in more detail:

• Premise 1: usage of the braces API on untrusted input can result in a runtime error.
• Premise 2: runtime errors can cause the Node.js process to terminate.
• Premise 3: catching runtime errors, including RangeError, prevent the Node.js process from terminating.
• Premise 4: the only safe usage of the braces API is inside a try-catch API. (This is a consequence of Premise 1-3.)
• Conclusion: therefor under any safe usage of the braces API will NOT lead to termination of the Node.js process as a result of any inputs causing a RangeError.

The only assumption I made, as far as I can tell, is that we're considering "safe" usage of the braces API. If we do not only consider "safe" usage of the braces API then not only does my comical scenario from before apply, the fact that braces throws an error for inputs that exceed the character limit itself should also be considered a security vulnerability.

And why so? A large part of digital security is pointless to technically oriented people. All the process controls and certifications, all the posturing by vendors. Why should your and some other GitHubians viewpoint prevail in this larger context?

Again, I can turn it around, why should "their" point of view prevail.

I can give you one concrete reason why "our" (sidenote: it's bold of you to assume which "side" I'm on) opinion should at least matter: in the end "we" are the ones that have to deal with it.

To be more constructive, let my clarify why it seems pointless to me (under the assumption that the vulnerability has some merit and the viable fix is to update the documentation):

1. My application is using braces@3.0.3 and as a result A) is vulnerable and B) has a known vulnerability in it's dependency tree.
2. I update to braces@3.0.4, which, again, in the hypothetical we're discussing in this particular argumentation, only changes the documentation.
3. My application is using braces@3.0.4 and as a result A) is vulnerable and B) has NO known vulnerability in it's dependency tree.

I ask you, what did upgrading achieve?

Lastly, like it or not but you are just as much a "GitHubians" as the rest of us in the context of this discussion 🙂

It's a security improvement since it improves security by design, and it's a vulnerability remediation as long as the braces docs make misleading claims about its security properties.

Once again I don't disagree that such improvements are worthwhile. However, neither are sufficient grounds for a vulnerability advisory as far as I'm concerned.

... and then provides one example of a mitigation that's implemented. You see that as limitative, but the wording is ambiguous at the very least.

I can concede the wording is ambiguous. Again in this case, I'm all for improving the wording but creating a CVE for ambiguous wording seems beyond reasonable to me...

As I wrote earlier, returning errors as values instead of propagating exceptions makes for more robust systems.

Since you're not willing to get concrete I'll attack a strawman instead. Returning undefined instead of the "normal" return value for this case will result in runtime errors inside consumer applications, which is not helpful either.

More generally, if you don't like the fact that package throw exceptions, don't use them. If you don't like JavaScript, don't use it.

[sanmai-NL]

so that point is moot

Ok

Interacting with the network should be broadened to accepting tainted data. This package, braces, then, oversells its qualities in promising developers not to worry about things they/their libraries/frameworks should worry about. Fix the docs and we're done ...

Again, sure. No CVE needed.

Uhm, vulnerability -> CVE. Misleading docs -> vulnerabilities .

While I agree with the critical sentiment, you don't provide evidence for this broad claim, and this case can be countered quite easily.

Fair enough, though I'm afraid it would be impossible for me to provide evidence for sentiment...

Then why did you express it?

The braces maintainer could have immediately fixed the docs, push a new version if need be, and be done with it. Instead he chose to argue and ridicule the many issues and comments this situation raised. Just as low as the barrier to CVE acceptance appears to be, from your viewpoint at least, could the remediation be.

If you really believe it's OK for some random person to get a random CVE assigned to random projects and the best course of action is to waste the developer's time by making them do a release just to make the CVE machine happy then you and I are so fundamentally in disagreement that I don't see how any amount of discussion could lead to fruitful results.

Interesting, your use of random qualifier. What are you trying to say exactly? Should only accredited people and officially designated products be involved in this?

The developer himself wastes his users time by falsely marketing a package. Why not just be honest and let the users look elsewhere if they want to be hand-held?

The onus is on you

Why is that? Just because the CVE already exists as a result of a CVE-farming individual who convinced a numbering authority with no skin in the game to publish one?

Uhm, yes. You say it as if you find it unfair. But who promised to be fair to you and people who're annoyed by this too, in this thread?

In any case, let me spell out my argument in more detail:

• Premise 1: usage of the braces API on untrusted input can result in a runtime error.
• Premise 2: runtime errors can cause the Node.js process to terminate.
• Premise 3: catching runtime errors, including RangeError, prevent the Node.js process from terminating.
• Premise 4: the only safe usage of the braces API is inside a try-catch API. (This is a consequence of Premise 1-3.)
• Conclusion: therefor under any safe usage of the braces API will NOT lead to termination of the Node.js process as a result of any inputs causing a RangeError.

I think the technicalities have been discussed to death already. Nobody disagrees. The problem is, the package makes the claim that developers no longer have to worry about the weakness we see here, because his package is ‘safer‘. You can reason about the exploitation risk, etc., but packages marketed misleadingly to the many developers who know much less about security than you do are a real problem. You don't seem to accept that.

The only assumption I made, as far as I can tell, is that we're considering "safe" usage of the braces API. If we do not only consider "safe" usage of the braces API then not only does my comical scenario from before apply, the fact that braces throws an error for inputs that exceed the character limit itself should also be considered a security vulnerability.

And why is that unthinkable? I'm trying to tell you, try to take a different perspective for once. I agree, from a somewhat similar perspective as yours, that it's silly to come to think of all the risks due to uncaught exceptions in the Node.js ecosystem. But that doesn't mean there's no problem. Driving without a seatbelt is stupid, still, people do it.

And why so? A large part of digital security is pointless to technically oriented people. All the process controls and certifications, all the posturing by vendors. Why should your and some other GitHubians viewpoint prevail in this larger context?

Again, I can turn it around, why should "their" point of view prevail.

Have you checked who's actually more in charge in our world? PhD students and researchers, or big vendors and platforms?

I can give you one concrete reason why "our" (sidenote: it's bold of you to assume which "side" I'm on) opinion should at least matter: in the end "we" are the ones that have to deal with it.

I see from your position and arguments which side you're on, on the premise that these sides exist. Not so bold really.

‘Street garbage collectors now demand, that people shouldn't produce so much waste, since it's them who have to deal with it.’ I hope you see the point now.

To be more constructive, let my clarify why it seems pointless to me (under the assumption that the vulnerability has some merit and the viable fix is to update the documentation):

1. My application is using braces@3.0.3 and as a result A) is vulnerable and B) has a known vulnerability in it's dependency tree.
2. I update to braces@3.0.4, which, again, in the hypothetical we're discussing in this particular argumentation, only changes the documentation.
3. My application is using braces@3.0.4 and as a result A) is vulnerable and B) has NO known vulnerability in it's dependency tree.

I ask you, what did upgrading achieve?

I think this is one of your weaker argumentation lines. Of course, nobody should change the version of a dependency without assessing it. A one line braces changelog must be doable to handle: ‘clarify security risks’.

Lastly, like it or not but you are just as much a "GitHubians" as the rest of us in the context of this discussion 🙂

Yeah, true. I hope some of us, like I do here, can take a broader perspective even if unpopular. Not just ‘meh, security risk low, lazy CVE filing, do not like maintenance work’.

It's a security improvement since it improves security by design, and it's a vulnerability remediation as long as the braces docs make misleading claims about its security properties.

Once again I don't disagree that such improvements are worthwhile. However, neither are sufficient grounds for a vulnerability advisory as far as I'm concerned.

This one line I think summarizes our discussion and positions very well. I think the broader view is worthwhile: many consumers (developers) use this dependency, and may very well be misled because of the false marketing, and signalling this through a CVE is useful. The work this encumbers the braces maintainer and its non-affected consumers is negligible: a one line MarkDown change (when resolved minimalistically), a version bump of a dependency.

... and then provides one example of a mitigation that's implemented. You see that as limitative, but the wording is ambiguous at the very least.

I can concede the wording is ambiguous. Again in this case, I'm all for improving the wording but creating a CVE for ambiguous wording seems beyond reasonable to me...

As I wrote earlier, returning errors as values instead of propagating exceptions makes for more robust systems.

Since you're not willing to get concrete I'll attack a strawman instead. Returning undefined instead of the "normal" return value for this case will result in runtime errors inside consumer applications, which is not helpful either.

More generally, if you don't like the fact that package throw exceptions, don't use them. If you don't like JavaScript, don't use it.

Your claim I'm not willing to do something is unwarranted, and I have been concrete in mentioning the common name of a commonly known design pattern. I believe you honestly did not understand yet from my comment alone. Here's an example library that helps implement this pattern: https://www.typescript-result.dev/.

You're a bit inaccurate here. The unchecked, undocumented, unhandled exception throwing antipattern specifically affects Node.js, not JavaScript engines in general, when used for CLI and server applications, and those who don't use conventional TypeScript or other, bare bones techniques in JavaScript.

[ericcornelissen]

Uhm, vulnerability -> CVE. Misleading docs -> vulnerabilities

For the first one, sure(-ish). Under the premise that a documentation change would suffice in the case of this CVE, this doesn't apply.

For the second one, No. Consider a function that states it always returns a value greater than 0 but actually always returns a value greater than 1. This is misleading, but I cannot see any possible vulnerability arising from it.

Then why did you express it?

Why not? I'm very sorry to tell you but the topic of vulnerabilities is not purely factual. Whether something is a vulnerability, bug, or intended behavior is very much subjective. Hence, I don't see a reason to reject other types of subjective arguments outright.

Interesting, your use of random qualifier. What are you trying to say exactly? Should only accredited people and officially designated products be involved in this?

My main point is that the opinion of the maintainer of the package should weight a hell of a lot more than some private GitHub account with, to the extend I was able to find, no credible history of vulnerability reports that is submitting LLM generated security reports of dubious quality.

The developer himself wastes his users time by falsely marketing a package. Why not just be honest and let the users look elsewhere if they want to be hand-held?

We can be honest about that but last I checked (including in the very comment containing this quote) this is not grounds for a CVE.

Uhm, yes. You say it as if you find it unfair. But who promised to be fair to you and people who're annoyed by this too, in this thread?

That doesn't mean the onus isn't on you.

I think the technicalities have been discussed to death already. Nobody disagrees. The problem is, the package makes the claim that developers no longer have to worry about the weakness we see here, because his package is ‘safer‘. You can reason about the exploitation risk, etc., but packages marketed misleadingly to the many developers who know much less about security than you do are a real problem.

Please explain how such developers are (negatively) affected by the behavior described in this CVE.

Have you checked who's actually more in charge in our world? PhD students and researchers, or big vendors and platforms?

It matters not to me who is in charge. In a functional system developers are involved because, again, they have to fix the problem in the end. If they choose the abandon the CVE system it breaks down regardless of who is "in charge".

And why is that unthinkable? I'm trying to tell you, try to take a different perspective for once. I agree, from a somewhat similar perspective as yours, that it's silly to come to think of all the risks due to uncaught exceptions in the Node.js ecosystem. But that doesn't mean there's no problem. Driving without a seatbelt is stupid, still, people do it.

I did not say/imply it is unthinkable, rather that it is comical/nonsensical. What perspective exactly do you want me to take?

Of course, nobody should change the version of a dependency without assessing it.

Why is it OK to expect people to thoroughly review and understand dependency updates when it is not OK to expect people to understand the same dependency and put a try-catch around their calls to it?

Yeah, true. I hope some of us, like I do here, can take a broader perspective even if unpopular. Not just ‘meh, security risk low, lazy CVE filing, do not like maintenance work’.

This argument is off-topic but if you must: Note I'm not a maintainer of braces, not even a direct consumer. From where I'm at the easy/lazy thing to do is just ignore the CVE and move on with my life. Submitting a request to change it and arguing for the change is far from the lazy option.

Again I ask, what is the broader perspective I should take?

I have been concrete in mentioning the common name of a commonly known design pattern. I believe you honestly did not understand yet from my comment alone. Here's an example library that helps implement this pattern: https://www.typescript-result.dev/.

I'm sorry to tell you but "errors as values" has a much broader meaning than the individual example you gave. The one I sketched is(/was?) common in C. Go has errors as distinct values, but in a different style. The example you gave can be seen in e.g. Rust. Hence my provocation.

I agree both the Go and Rust examples have benefits. However, I will point out that they still allow you to bypass them in ways that are just as detrimental as uncaught exceptions, if not more so in these particular languages.

But I don't really see how any of this is relevant to the discussion. The package explicitly uses error throwing in its API so I really don't understand how one could argue that throwing errors is inherently wrong in this situation - this whole argument thread seems off-topic to me.

You're a bit inaccurate here. The unchecked, undocumented, unhandled exception throwing antipattern specifically affects Node.js, not JavaScript engines in general, when used for CLI and server applications, and those who don't use conventional TypeScript or other, bare bones techniques in JavaScript.

It's unclear to me how, e.g., Browser-based JavaScript fares any better.

[jonschlinkert]

@sanmai-NL, I put your comments into an AI detector and your entire responses are AI generated. >90%. Just FYI to the rest of the group.

Given that almost all of the arguments for the CVE here are AI-generated, I will summarize this as a problem of explosive complexity: we will only ever be able to guard against a limited range of scenarios. THIS IS A FACT.

This applies to a backtracking NFA (like V8), a pure linear-time DFA, or a hybrid JIT compiler. If the regex engines can't even prevent this, how would we? Globs and brace patterns are regular expressions. While it's true that globs impose certain limitations on regular expressions, those glob-specific limitations themselves unfortunately do not stop exploding complexity. You can think of it as a "state-space explosion problem", where brace nesting is only one of many possible ways to explode the state-space. Brace nesting happens to be a highly visible way to create large structural trees during parsing, so it's an obvious way to create a state-space explosion, but state-space explosions happen from many other combinations of wildcards, repetitions, and (especially) negations.

In other words, any user could easily trigger a catastrophic state-space explosion using a variety of basic regex features, even if the pattern is perfectly flat and completely devoid of nested braces:

• Overlapping wildcard patterns: A flat pattern like .*a.*a.*a.*X creates ambiguity when it's matched against strings like aaaa.... This creates a massive state-space explosion for a backtracking engine because the wildcards dynamically overlap, forcing millions of permutations of "which * matched which a?".
• Nested repetitions (this is Eggan's Star Height): Patterns containing nested repetition constructs (like (a*)* or extglobs like *(a|*(b))) exponentially multiply the internal states required to track where one loop ends and the next begins.
• Negation ("complementation" as the comp-sci nerds call it): Negation (!) requires a mathematical inversion of the language's state structure. If an engine (DFA, NFA, JIT, doesn't matter) attempts to resolve this natively, it triggers a combinatorial explosion of hidden states just to map out what a pattern is not allowed to match. This gets out of hand quickly. It's the most obvious "attack vector" if you're letting untrusted 3rd parties define regular expressions.

In other words, once a patch to limit brace nesting is implemented, AI will just move onto another obvious state-space exploding pattern to create the next CVE.

One might argue that we should still patch this because, "at least it will guard against brace depth". But my counter argument is that any bad actor can easily get around the limitations with many other patterns that cause explosions in state-space. So the patch to limit brace depth would do nothing for the library or users, while compensating the people who created the bullshit CVE. And given that the security researchers intentionally picked a low-hanging-fruit pattern to exploit, they are certainly aware of this.

The only thing being exploited here is the community, and Snyk is the attacker. What say ye, ChatGPT?

[G-Rath]

@ArianeBouchardConformit (and friends): I filed a dispute with MITRE (ID 2122324) on Sunday (NZT) about

• CVE-2026-93687
• CVE-2026-93748
• CVE-2026-97058

They contacted me yesterday asking

As we begin the CVE dispute process, do we have your permission to share your contact information and the vulnerability details with the VulnCheck CNA when reaching out to them regarding these issues?

so at this point I've gotten more response from them than I have the CNA which is technically an improvement...

[ArianeBouchardConformit]

@G-Rath Thanks a bunch for your involvement! I guess mine will likely get closed as a duplicate then.

[asrichesson]

Any word on the CVE dispute?

[ArianeBouchardConformit]

@asrichesson None on my side. Nothing whatsoever. I've submitted a follow-up on the request, but it's possible they're silently ignoring mine in favour of @G-Rath 's request...

EDIT: I just realized there was a required field I hadn't filled in. And yet it allowed me to submit the form and led me to believe all was in order. What terrible UI.

Anyway, I filled in the missing field just now. Possibly the wait for my request begins now. Sorry about that.

[fredericDelaporte]

It seems to me image-size had a similar issue, CVE considered pointless but causing tooling alerts. Apparently, they "fixed" this by migrating to another repository provider than GitHub. And now, the offending CVEs are no more creeping back in, it seems.

No idea what that other repository provider does differently for that.

[lppedd]

Migrating to another hosting like Codeberg works temporarily imo. CVEs will be opened regardless of where you host your code. The same is valid with forks: you can fork and republish as many times as you want, but the CVE will catch up eventually.

[Serhansolo]

Do you have any updates @ArianeBouchardConformit?

[ArianeBouchardConformit]

@Serhansolo None whatsoever.

@G-Rath Anything on your side?

[G-Rath]

I have successfully gotten CVE-2026-97058 rejected (including on VulnCheck who finally replied - ironically they replied on my braces dispute email), and have emailed GitHub about that to have them withdraw their advisory.

For the other two there's been no update - it sounds like VulnCheck are not engaging with MITRE either, but I have been chasing them both.

[ArianeBouchardConformit]

@G-Rath Thank you for your involvement. It's wild though that the VulnCheck vulnerability disappeared without a trace. I would have expected it to stay documented as a rejected item.

I hope this will push the system towards an improvement in the end...

[G-Rath]

I realized that GH is a dedicated CNA so forwards my dispute of CVE-2026-97058 on to them and they withdrew it from their database within the hour, so I've now forwarded them my disputes of all three advisories in the hopes they choose to withdraw them independently.

[Scetrov]

Really appreciate your persistence on this @G-Rath - hopefully this gets propagated out and we can move on.