Impact: The undici WebSocket client enforces maxPayloadSize on the cumulative byte count of fragments in a message but does not enforce a limit on the number of fragments. A malicious WebSocket server can stream many small or empty continuation frames that each pass per-frame and cumulative-size validation, collectively causing unbounded memory growth in the client process. The result is memory exhaustion and a denial of service.
Affected applications are those using the undici WebSocket client (new WebSocket(…)) or the WebSocketStream API that can be induced to connect to an attacker-controlled or compromised WebSocket endpoint.
All releases starting at undici 6.17.0 are affected.
Patches: Upgrade to undici >= 6.26.0, >= 7.28.0, or >= 8.5.0. Workarounds: No workaround is available. The fix must be applied through an upgrade.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Undici | Nodejs | 6.17.0 (including) | 6.27.0 (excluding) |
| Undici | Nodejs | 7.0.0 (including) | 7.28.0 (excluding) |
| Undici | Nodejs | 8.0.0 (including) | 8.5.0 (excluding) |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 | RedHat | nodejs24-1:24.18.0-1.el10_2 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 | RedHat | nodejs22-1:22.23.1-2.el10_2 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10.0 Extended Update Support | RedHat | nodejs22-1:22.23.1-2.el10_0 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | RedHat | nodejs:24-8100020260630152626.6d880403 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | RedHat | nodejs:24-9080020260626074955.rhel9 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | RedHat | nodejs:22-9080020260626075442.rhel9 | * |
| Cluster Observability Operator 1.5.0 | RedHat | cluster-observability-operator/distributed-tracing-console-plugin-pf4-rhel9:1782840519 | * |
| Cluster Observability Operator 1.5.0 | RedHat | cluster-observability-operator/distributed-tracing-console-plugin-pf5-rhel9:1782839981 | * |
| Cluster Observability Operator 1.5.0 | RedHat | cluster-observability-operator/distributed-tracing-console-plugin-pf6-rhel9:1782839193 | * |
| Cluster Observability Operator 1.5.0 | RedHat | cluster-observability-operator/distributed-tracing-console-plugin-rhel9:1782838753 | * |
| Cluster Observability Operator 1.5.0 | RedHat | cluster-observability-operator/logging-console-plugin-pf4-rhel9:1782839279 | * |
| Cluster Observability Operator 1.5.0 | RedHat | cluster-observability-operator/logging-console-plugin-pf5-rhel9:1782840539 | * |
| Cluster Observability Operator 1.5.0 | RedHat | cluster-observability-operator/logging-console-plugin-rhel9:1782841925 | * |
| Cluster Observability Operator 1.5.0 | RedHat | cluster-observability-operator/monitoring-console-plugin-pf5-rhel9:1782844225 | * |
| Cluster Observability Operator 1.5.0 | RedHat | cluster-observability-operator/monitoring-console-plugin-pf6-rhel9:1782839658 | * |
| Cluster Observability Operator 1.5.0 | RedHat | cluster-observability-operator/monitoring-console-plugin-rhel9:1782838476 | * |
| Cluster Observability Operator 1.5.0 | RedHat | cluster-observability-operator/troubleshooting-panel-console-plugin-pf6-rhel9:1782839996 | * |
| Cluster Observability Operator 1.5.0 | RedHat | cluster-observability-operator/troubleshooting-panel-console-plugin-rhel9:1782839494 | * |
| Red Hat Developer Hub 1.10 | RedHat | rhdh/rhdh-hub-rhel9:1783448184 | * |
| Red Hat Hardened Images | RedHat | nodejs26-main-26.5.0-1.3.hum1 | * |
| Red Hat Hardened Images | RedHat | nodejs24-main-24.18.0-0.3.hum1 | * |
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.16 | RedHat | openshift4/ose-monitoring-plugin-rhel9:1783306396 | * |
| Red Hat OpenShift Dev Spaces 3.29 | RedHat | devspaces/dashboard-rhel9:1782498792 | * |
| Red Hat OpenShift Dev Spaces 3.29 | RedHat | devspaces/openvsx-rhel9:1783007534 | * |
| Red Hat OpenShift Dev Spaces 3.29 | RedHat | devspaces/pluginregistry-rhel9:1782989367 | * |
| Node-undici | Ubuntu | questing | * |
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.