A OS Command Injection vulnerability exists in Node.js versions <14.21.1, <16.18.1, <18.12.1, <19.0.1 due to an insufficient IsAllowedHost check that can easily be bypassed because IsIPAddress does not properly check if an IP address is invalid before making DBS requests allowing rebinding attacks.The fix for this issue in https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2022-32212 was incomplete and this new CVE is to complete the fix.

The llhttp parser in the http module in Node v18.7.0 does not correctly handle header fields that are not terminated with CLRF. This may result in HTTP Request Smuggling.

A weak randomness in WebCrypto keygen vulnerability exists in Node.js 18 due to a change with EntropySource() in SecretKeyGenTraits::DoKeyGen() in src/crypto/crypto_keygen.cc. There are two problems with this: 1) It does not check the return value, it assumes EntropySource() always succeeds, but it can (and sometimes will) fail. 2) The random data returned byEntropySource() may not be cryptographically strong and therefore not suitable as keying material.

Keystone is a headless CMS for Node.js — built with GraphQL and React.`@keystone-6/core@3.0.0 || 3.0.1` users that use `NODE_ENV` to trigger security-sensitive functionality in their production builds are vulnerable to `NODE_ENV` being inlined to `"development"` for user code, irrespective of what your environment variables. If you do not use `NODE_ENV` in your user code to trigger security-sensitive functionality, you are not impacted by this vulnerability. Any dependencies that use `NODE_ENV` to trigger particular behaviors (optimizations, security or otherwise) should still respect your environment's configured `NODE_ENV` variable. The application's dependencies, as found in `node_modules` (including `@keystone-6/core`), are typically not compiled as part of this process, and thus should be unaffected. We have tested this assumption by verifying that `NODE_ENV=production yarn keystone start` still uses secure cookies when using `statelessSessions`. This vulnerability has been fixed…

@keystone-6/core is a core package for Keystone 6, a content management system for Node.js. Starting with version 2.2.0 and prior to version 2.3.1, users who expected their `multiselect` fields to use the field-level access control - if configured - are vulnerable to their field-level access control not being used. List-level access control is not affected. Field-level access control for fields other than `multiselect` are not affected. Version 2.3.1 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, stop using the `multiselect` field.

An exponential ReDoS (Regular Expression Denial of Service) can be triggered in the uri-template-lite npm package, when an attacker is able to supply arbitrary input to the "URI.expand" method

Vitejs Vite before v2.9.13 was discovered to allow attackers to perform a directory traversal via a crafted URL to the victim's service.

undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`=< undici@5.8.0` users are vulnerable to _CRLF Injection_ on headers when using unsanitized input as request headers, more specifically, inside the `content-type` header. Example: ``` import { request } from 'undici' const unsanitizedContentTypeInput = 'application/json\r\n\r\nGET /foo2 HTTP/1.1' await request('http://localhost:3000, { method: 'GET', headers: { 'content-type': unsanitizedContentTypeInput }, }) ``` The above snippet will perform two requests in a single `request` API call: 1) `http://localhost:3000/` 2) `http://localhost:3000/foo2` This issue was patched in Undici v5.8.1. Sanitize input when sending content-type headers using user input as a workaround.

undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`undici` is vulnerable to SSRF (Server-side Request Forgery) when an application takes in **user input** into the `path/pathname` option of `undici.request`. If a user specifies a URL such as `http://127.0.0.1` or `//127.0.0.1` ```js const undici = require("undici") undici.request({origin: "http://example.com", pathname: "//127.0.0.1"}) ``` Instead of processing the request as `http://example.org//127.0.0.1` (or `http://example.org/http://127.0.0.1` when `http://127.0.0.1 is used`), it actually processes the request as `http://127.0.0.1/` and sends it to `http://127.0.0.1`. If a developer passes in user input into `path` parameter of `undici.request`, it can result in an _SSRF_ as they will assume that the hostname cannot change, when in actual fact it can change because the specified path parameter is combined with the base URL. This issue was fixed in `undici@5.8.1`. The best workaround is to validate user input before p…

Prototype Pollution in GitHub repository automattic/mongoose prior to 6.4.6.