CVE-2025-15284

Improper Input Validation vulnerability in qs (parse modules) allows HTTP DoS.This issue affects qs: < 6.14.1. Summary The arrayLimit option in qs did not enforce limits for bracket notation (a[]=1&a[]=2), only for indexed notation (a[0]=1). This is a consistency bug; arrayLimit should apply uniformly across all array notations. Note: The default parameterLimit of 1000 effectively mitigates the DoS scenario originally described. With default options, bracket notation cannot produce arrays larger than parameterLimit regardless of arrayLimit, because each a[]=valueconsumes one parameter slot. The severity has been reduced accordingly. Details The arrayLimit option only checked limits for indexed notation (a[0]=1&a[1]=2) but did not enforce it for bracket notation (a[]=1&a[]=2). Vulnerable code (lib/parse.js:159-162): if (root === '[]' && options.parseArrays) { obj = utils.combine([], leaf); // No arrayLimit check } Working code (lib/parse.js:175): else if (index <= options.arrayLimit) { // Limit checked here obj = []; obj[index] = leaf; } The bracket notation handler at line 159 uses utils.combine([], leaf) without validating against options.arrayLimit, while indexed notation at line 175 checks index <= options.arrayLimit before creating arrays. PoC const qs = require('qs'); const result = qs.parse('a[]=1&a[]=2&a[]=3&a[]=4&a[]=5&a[]=6', { arrayLimit: 5 }); console.log(result.a.length); // Output: 6 (should be max 5) Note on parameterLimit interaction: The original advisory's "DoS demonstration" claimed a length of 10,000, but parameterLimit (default: 1000) caps parsing to 1,000 parameters. With default options, the actual output is 1,000, not 10,000. Impact Consistency bug in arrayLimit enforcement. With default parameterLimit, the practical DoS risk is negligible since parameterLimit already caps the total number of parsed parameters (and thus array elements from bracket notation). The risk increases only when parameterLimit is explicitly set to a very high value.

• CWE-20

• https://github.com/ljharb/qs/commit/3086902ecf7f088d0d1803887643ac6c03d415b9Patch
• https://github.com/ljharb/qs/security/advisories/GHSA-6rw7-vpxm-498pExploit, Mitigation, Vendor Advisory

Published

Dec 29, 2025

Last Modified

Jun 17, 2026

Status

Analyzed

• How Strix found a critical auth bypass in etcdStrix autonomously discovered a critical authentication bypass in etcd, later designated CVE-2026-33413.
• Autonomous PentestingAI agents that find and validate exploitable vulnerabilities like this one across your applications.
• PR ReviewsPentest every pull request so vulnerable code is caught before it ships to production.
• AI Penetration TestingHow AI-driven penetration testing continuously covers your attack surface.

• CVE-2025-15279FontForge GUtils BMP File Parsing Heap-based Buffer Overflow…7.8
• CVE-2025-1528The Search & Filter Pro plugin for WordPress is vulnerable t…4.3
• CVE-2025-15280FontForge SFD File Parsing Use-After-Free Remote Code Execut…8.8
• CVE-2025-15281Calling wordexp with WRDE_REUSE in conjunction with WRDE_APP…7.5
• CVE-2025-15282User-controlled data URLs parsed by urllib.request.DataHandl…6
• CVE-2025-15283The Name Directory plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sto…7.2
• CVE-2025-15285The SEO Flow by LupsOnline plugin for WordPress is vulnerabl…7.5
• CVE-2025-15288Tanium addressed an improper access controls vulnerability i…4.3
• CVE-2025-15289Tanium addressed an improper access controls vulnerability i…3.1
• CVE-2025-1529The AM LottiePlayer plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to St…6.4
• CVE-2025-1530The Tripetto plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Sit…4.3
• CVE-2025-1531Authentication credentials leakage vulnerability in Hitachi…6.5