CVE-2026-82562 — qs.parse does not enforce arrayLimit on comma groups under bracket-push keys when throwOnLimitExceeded is set (incomplete fix for CVE-2026-2391)
### Summary When `qs.parse` is called with `comma: true` and `throwOnLimitExceeded: true`, a comma-separated value under a bracket-push key (`a[]=1,2,3,4`) is split into an array without being compared against `arrayLimit`, while the same value under a flat key (`a=1,2,3,4`), an indexed key (`a[0]=`), a nested key (`a[b]=`), or a dotted key (`a.b=` with `allowDots`) throws the documented `RangeError`. A single parameter such as `a[]=1,2,2,...` therefore produces an inner array of arbitrary length even though the caller opted into the hard limit. This is the `[]=` key form that the fix for CVE-2026-2391 (qs 6.14.2) did not cover. ### Details In `lib/parse.js`, a comma-separated value under a `[]=` key is split and then wrapped as a single nested element (`val = [val]`, so that each `a[]=x,y` group counts as one element of the outer array). The `arrayLimit` check that 6.14.2 added for comma values runs after that wrap, so for `[]=` parts it only ever saw the wrapper of length 1. 6.15.3 added a pre-split comma count so that an oversized value throws before it is allocated, but gated it on an `isFlatArrayValue` flag that `parseValues` set to `false` for any part containing `[]=`, and did not pass it for object-valued input, so the gap remained. #### PoC ```js var qs = require('qs'); var options = { comma: true, arrayLimit: 3, throwOnLimitExceeded: true }; qs.parse('a=1,2,3,4', options); // RangeError: Array limit exceeded. Only 3 elements allowed in an array. qs.parse('a[]=1,2,3,4', options); // { a: [ [ '1', '2', '3', '4' ] ] } (no throw) qs.parse('a[]=' + '1,'.repeat(1000000) + '1', { comma: true, arrayLimit: 20, throwOnLimitExceeded: true }); // no throw; a 1,000,001-element inner array is allocated ``` #### Fix `lib/parse.js`, applied in 8859c37 on `main` and released as v6.16.0: the `isFlatArrayValue` gate is removed, so every comma-split value is counted against `arrayLimit` before splitting regardless of key form. An in-limit group under `a[]=` still counts as one element of the outer array, and the default (`throwOnLimitExceeded: false`) path is unchanged. ### Affected versions `>=6.14.2 <6.16.0`, fixed in v6.16.0. v6.14.2 introduced `arrayLimit` enforcement for comma values (the fix for CVE-2026-2391) but only for values not under a `[]=` key, and every release from v6.14.2 through v6.15.3 has the same gap. v6.14.0 and v6.14.1, where `throwOnLimitExceeded` exists but does not apply to any comma form, are covered by CVE-2026-2391 rather than this record. Earlier lines (6.7.x through 6.13.x) have `comma` but no `throwOnLimitExceeded`, so there is no hard cap on any comma path to bypass; releases before 6.7.0 have no `comma` option. ### Impact An unauthenticated attacker who can reach an application that parses untrusted query strings or urlencoded bodies with both `comma: true` and `throwOnLimitExceeded: true` (both non-default) can bypass the configured limit with a single `a[]=` parameter and force the parser to allocate an array proportional to the request size. The cost is strictly linear in the attacker-supplied bytes (about 0.1 microseconds and 6 to 7 retained bytes per input byte; the same out-of-memory threshold as the documented default `throwOnLimitExceeded: false` path), so a transport-layer request or body size limit bounds it completely (and node's default maximum HTTP header size of 16 KB already bounds the request line, so multi-megabyte payloads need a body parser). The impact is that an opt-in hard limit fails open on one key spelling, not unbounded allocation from a small input.
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 0.5% (30-day exploitation probability)+7
- CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5
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.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
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 (Ljharb Qs).
- The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (denial of service), errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.3 | CVSS 4.0 | Medium | — | — | 7ffcee3d-2c14-4c3e-b844-86c6a321a158 via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 6.3 | CVSS 4.0 | Medium | — | — | harborist via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
| 3.7 | CVSS 3.1 | Low | 2.2 | 1.4 | 7ffcee3d-2c14-4c3e-b844-86c6a321a158 via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 3.7 | CVSS 3.1 | Low | — | — | harborist via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L (score shown at the top: 7ffcee3d-2c14-4c3e-b844-86c6a321a158) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
CWE-770 · Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
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).
- Track CPU/memory spikes and availability drops correlated with request patterns.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · ljharb/qs
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 3.7
- Source status changed · → Awaiting Analysis
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
3 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Medium CVE-2026-110816 qs.stringify with arrayFormat comma throws TypeError on array elements that cannot be coerced to a string 1d
- Medium CVE-2026-82417 qs.stringify throws TypeError on objects with a non-callable constructor.isBuffer property Aug 29, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-8723 qs.stringify crashes on null/undefined entries in comma-format arrays under encodeValuesOnly May 16, 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 fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- 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-2026-82562 is "qs.parse does not enforce arrayLimit on comma groups under bracket-push keys when throwOnLimitExceeded is set (incomplete fix for CVE-2026-2391)", rated Low. It affects Qs (Ljharb); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 3.7 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.54% 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.