CVE-2026-48713 — i18next-fs-backend: Prototype pollution via crafted missing-key string
Versions prior to 2.6.6 are vulnerable to prototype pollution via crafted missing-key strings when used to persist missing translation keys (e.g. via i18next-http-middleware's missingKeyHandler exposed to untrusted input). Backend.writeFile() splits each queued missing-key string on the configured keySeparator (default .) before calling the internal setPath() walker. The walker (getLastOfPath in lib/utils.js) did not guard against unsafe segments, so a key like "__proto__.polluted" was split into ["__proto__", "polluted"] and walked straight into Object.prototype, allowing an attacker to write arbitrary properties onto the global object prototype. Depending on the host application, polluted prototype properties may cause crashes, corrupted translation behaviour, configuration poisoning, or bypasses of property-based security checks. Applications are affected only if the missingKeyHandler (or another route that forwards untrusted request bodies to i18next.t(..., { ... }) with saveMissing: true) is reachable by untrusted users and the default behaviour of splitting missing-key strings on keySeparator is in use (i.e. keySeparator is not false). Apps that do not expose missing-key persistence to untrusted input are not directly affected through this attack path. This issue has been fixed in version 2.6.6. If developers using the library are unable to upgrade immediately, they should take the following precautions: do not expose i18next-http-middleware's missingKeyHandler to untrusted users (mount it behind authentication, or remove the route), disable missing-key persistence (saveMissing: false, or no backend.create implementation) when accepting writes from untrusted input, and set keySeparator: false in their i18next options to disable backend key splitting (note: this also disables nested translation keys).
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- EPSS 0.7% (30-day exploitation probability)+8
- Technical severity (critical)+10
- Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
CISA SSVC assessment CISA
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
- Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
- Documented mitigation — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (I18next I18next-fs-backend).
- The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
- Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
- Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (injection), errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I18next | I18next-fs-backend | < 2.6.6 | Vulnerable | NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| I18next | I18next-fs-backend | version < 2.6.6 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.1 | CVSS 3.1 | Critical | 3.9 | 5.2 | security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 9.1 | CVSS 3.1 | Critical | — | — | GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.66%
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
- Look for parameters with command/query metacharacters and unexpected child processes of the service.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · i18next/i18next-fs-backend
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- Fix documented
- CVSS changed · 9.1
- Source status changed · → Analyzed
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026
References
2 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- High CVE-2026-41693 i18next-fs-backend: Path traversal via unsanitised lng/ns allows arbitrary file read/overwrite May 8, 2026
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-48713 is "i18next-fs-backend: Prototype pollution via crafted missing-key string", rated Critical. It affects I18next-fs-backend (I18next); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 9.1 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.66% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.