CVE-2026-82417

MEDIUMPre-NVD 5.35.3
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 5.3 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: MODERATE) published 2026-09-02. A secondary CVSS source baseline 5.3; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 4 sources updated this weekElevated

Also known asEUVD-2026-68140 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-4mjr-xmp4-gh2g (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

5.3EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • CISA's Vulnrichment rates exploitation as PoC; EchelonGraph holds no exploit-code reference for it
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.4%CVSS: 5.3Exploit: No code on recordExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

Fixed versions, as the CVE record's CNA (Harborist) states them: "Upgrade to qs 6.16.0 or later."

Summary

qs.stringify throws a TypeError when it serializes an object whose own constructor property has a truthy, non-callable isBuffer member. utils.isBuffer duck-types buffers by calling obj.constructor.isBuffer(obj) after checking only that the property is truthy, so a value such as { constructor: { isBuffer: "x" } } makes the call throw TypeError: obj.constructor.isBuffer is not a function.

Details

lib/stringify.js:127 calls utils.isBuffer on every non-primitive value it serializes. utils.isBuffer (lib/utils.js:332) reads obj.constructor.isBuffer and invokes it without verifying that it is a function. constructor and isBuffer are ordinary property names, so any object carrying them as own properties reaches the unchecked call.

Such an object can be built from untrusted input. qs.parse("x[constructor][isBuffer]=y", { plainObjects: true }) or { allowPrototypes: true } keeps the constructor key as an own property (the default parse options drop it), and JSON.parse("{\"a\":{\"constructor\":{\"isBuffer\":\"x\"}}}") produces the same shape with no qs option involved. Express 4 with its default query parser setting and body-parser with extended: true both call qs.parse with allowPrototypes: true, so on those stacks req.query and req.body can carry the shape directly.

PoC

var qs = require("qs");

qs.stringify(qs.parse("x[constructor][isBuffer]=y", { plainObjects: true }));

qs.stringify(JSON.parse("{\"a\":{\"constructor\":{\"isBuffer\":\"x\"}}}"));

// TypeError: obj.constructor.isBuffer is not a function

// at Object.isBuffer (lib/utils.js:332:78)

// at stringify (lib/stringify.js:127:45)

Fix

lib/utils.js, applied in e83d321 on main and released as v6.16.0:

- return !!(obj.constructor && obj.constructor.isBuffer && obj.constructor.isBuffer(obj));

+ return !!(obj.constructor && typeof obj.constructor.isBuffer === "function" && obj.constructor.isBuffer(obj));

Real Buffer, safer-buffer, and browserify buffer polyfill instances serialize exactly as before; only the throw is removed.

Affected versions

>=2.2.5 <6.16.0, fixed in v6.16.0.

The unguarded duck-type was introduced in 3768a75 and first shipped in v2.2.5 (September 2014). v2.2.4 and earlier used Buffer.isBuffer and are not affected. Every release from v2.2.5 through v6.15.3 contains the unguarded call.

Impact

An unauthenticated request can make any code path that re-serializes attacker-influenced data with qs.stringify (for example, rebuilding a query string from req.query for a redirect or an upstream request, or serializing a parsed JSON body) throw synchronously. In a typical Node.js HTTP framework the throw is caught by the framework error boundary and the affected request returns a 500; the process survives and other requests are unaffected. Where the call runs outside an error boundary, such as an async Express 4 handler (where the throw becomes an unhandled promise rejection) or a background job, the process exits, so the impact in that case depends on the application error handling rather than on qs.

CVSS v3
5.3
EG Score
5.3MEDIUMmedium confidence
EG Risk
55
EG Risk 55/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity53% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 5.3 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation40% × 40%
EchelonGraph's fixed weight for EG-KEV Tier 3 (Elevated): a constant, not a probability.
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
0.4%
EPSS %ILE
33rd
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (5.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
5.3 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.

Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

August 29, 2026

Last Modified

September 3, 2026

Advisory Details (2)

Auto-updated Aug 29, 2026
Patch available. Sources: github, github_commit.
GitHub commit

commit e83d321ffafb (ljharb/qs)

Fix landed in ljharb/qs commit e83d321ffafb — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/ljharb/qs/commit/e83d321ffafb38cf210683ac31714fce6ce1c6c6
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)

Denial of Service via Attacker Controlled isBuffer · Advisory · ljharb/qs · GitHub

https://github.com/ljharb/qs/security/advisories/GHSA-4mjr-xmp4-gh2g

Patch Availability(27)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
redhatrhoai/odh-workbench-codeserver-datascience-cpu-py312-rhel9:17912884002026-10-21redhat
redhatrhoai/odh-workbench-codeserver-datascience-cpu-py312-rhel9:17918254692026-10-21redhat
redhatrhoai/odh-workbench-codeserver-datascience-cpu-py312-rhel9:17917882672026-10-19redhat
redhatansible-automation-platform/bootc-automation-portal-rhel9:17918656602026-10-13redhat
redhatquay/quay-rhel8:17913145142026-10-08redhat
redhatquay/quay-rhel8:17914624282026-10-08redhat
redhatrhdh/rhdh-hub-rhel9:17913114952026-10-08redhat
redhatquay/quay-rhel8:17908084432026-10-07redhat
redhatrhdh/red-hat-developer-hub-backstage-plugin-scaffolder-backend-module-orchestrator:17912496402026-10-06redhat
redhatopenshift4/ose-agent-installer-ui-rhel9:17901121832026-09-29redhat
redhatopenshift4/ose-agent-installer-ui-rhel9:17901420722026-09-29redhat
redhatansible-automation-platform/automation-portal:17902564052026-09-28redhat
redhatansible-automation-platform/automation-portal:17902549632026-09-28redhat
redhatansible-automation-platform-26/lightspeed-rhel9:17896568842026-09-23redhat
redhatansible-automation-platform-25/lightspeed-rhel8:17896858372026-09-23redhat
redhatopenshift4/ose-agent-installer-ui-rhel9:17895461612026-09-22redhat
redhatdiscovery/discovery-ui-rhel9:17896774592026-09-21redhat
redhatquay/quay-rhel9:17895637532026-09-21redhat
redhatsatellite/iop-remediations-rhel9:17896155932026-09-17redhat
redhatsatellite/iop-remediations-rhel9:17896150952026-09-17redhat
redhatrhmtc/openshift-migration-ui-rhel8:17895463732026-09-17redhat
redhatmta/mta-ui-rhel9:17894467802026-09-16redhat
redhatadvanced-cluster-security/rhacs-main-rhel8:17894112692026-09-15redhat
redhatadvanced-cluster-security/rhacs-main-rhel9:17894113202026-09-15redhat
redhatgrafana13-2-main-13.2.1-0.1.hum12026-09-03redhat
redhatgrafana13-1-main-13.1.3-0.4.hum12026-09-02redhat
npmqs @ 6.16.0 (fixes >= 2.2.5, < 6.16.0)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(4 across 4 ecosystems)
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
node-qs6.11.0+ds+~6.9.7-3 ... 6.16.0+ds+~6.15.1-1 (9 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
node-qs6.13.0+ds+~6.9.16-1 ... 6.16.0+ds+~6.15.1-1 (7 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
node-qs6.13.0+ds+~6.9.16-1 ... 6.15.2+ds+~6.15.1-1 (6 versions)
  • every version up to 6.16.0+ds+~6.15.1-1: fixed in 6.16.0+ds+~6.15.1-1
—
npm(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
qs—
  • 2.2.5 up to 6.16.0: fixed in 6.16.0
—

Weakness Classification(2)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Additional Vendor Advisories

(7)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 10× in last 7d / 55× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 145 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 45 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-01 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  2. 2026-11-01 07:38 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-4mjr-xmp4-gh2g · GitHub severity MODERATE · GitHub CVSS 5.3
  3. 2026-11-01 07:38 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  5. 2026-10-30 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  6. 2026-10-30 01:25 UTCOSV refresh
  7. 2026-10-29 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  8. 2026-10-28 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  9. 2026-10-27 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  10. 2026-10-26 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  11. 2026-10-25 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  12. 2026-10-25 13:58 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-24 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  14. 2026-10-23 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  15. 2026-10-22 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 35th percentile
  16. 2026-10-22 13:43 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-22 13:43 UTCVendor advisory
  18. 2026-10-21 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  19. 2026-10-20 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  20. 2026-10-19 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  21. 2026-10-18 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  22. 2026-10-18 03:08 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-17 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  24. 2026-10-16 16:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  25. 2026-10-15 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-10-14 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  2. 2026-10-13 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  3. 2026-10-12 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  4. 2026-10-12 14:55 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-11 19:19 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 16:36 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 13:54 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  9. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  10. 2026-10-10 01:39 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-10 01:39 UTCVendor advisory
  12. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  13. 2026-10-09 02:33 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-09 02:33 UTCVendor advisory
  15. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  16. 2026-10-08 01:08 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-08 01:08 UTCVendor advisory
  18. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  19. 2026-10-07 02:10 UTCEG score recompute
  20. 2026-10-07 02:10 UTCVendor advisory
  21. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  22. 2026-10-06 02:53 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-06 02:53 UTCVendor advisory
  24. 2026-10-05 17:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  25. 2026-10-05 03:56 UTCEG score recompute
  26. 2026-10-05 03:56 UTCVendor advisory
  27. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  28. 2026-10-04 04:58 UTCEG score recompute
  29. 2026-10-04 04:58 UTCVendor advisory
  30. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  31. 2026-10-03 06:01 UTCEG score recompute
  32. 2026-10-03 06:01 UTCVendor advisory
  33. 2026-10-02 17:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  34. 2026-10-02 06:44 UTCEG score recompute
  35. 2026-10-02 06:44 UTCVendor advisory
  36. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  37. 2026-10-01 07:47 UTCEG score recompute
  38. 2026-10-01 07:47 UTCVendor advisory
  39. 2026-09-30 15:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  40. 2026-09-30 08:50 UTCEG score recompute
  41. 2026-09-30 08:50 UTCVendor advisory
  42. 2026-09-29 09:53 UTCEG score recompute
  43. 2026-09-29 09:53 UTCVendor advisory
  44. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  45. 2026-09-28 10:56 UTCEG score recompute
  46. 2026-09-28 10:56 UTCVendor advisory
  47. 2026-09-27 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  48. 2026-09-27 11:59 UTCEG score recompute
  49. 2026-09-27 11:59 UTCVendor advisory
  50. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  51. 2026-09-26 13:03 UTCEG score recompute
  52. 2026-09-26 13:03 UTCVendor advisory
  53. 2026-09-25 13:33 UTCVendor advisory
  54. 2026-09-24 14:29 UTCEG score recompute
  55. 2026-09-24 14:29 UTCVendor advisory
  56. 2026-09-24 14:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  57. 2026-09-23 17:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 18th percentile
  58. 2026-09-23 15:26 UTCVendor advisory
  59. 2026-09-22 16:18 UTCEG score recompute
  60. 2026-09-22 16:18 UTCVendor advisory
  61. 2026-09-22 16:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 18th percentile
  62. 2026-09-21 21:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 18th percentile
  63. 2026-09-21 17:16 UTCEG score recompute
  64. 2026-09-21 17:16 UTCVendor advisory
  65. 2026-09-20 20:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 18th percentile
  66. 2026-09-20 17:43 UTCVendor advisory
  67. 2026-09-19 18:43 UTCEG score recompute
  68. 2026-09-19 18:43 UTCVendor advisory
  69. 2026-09-18 19:46 UTCEG score recompute
  70. 2026-09-18 19:46 UTCVendor advisory
  71. 2026-09-18 19:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 18th percentile
  72. 2026-09-17 20:49 UTCEG score recompute
  73. 2026-09-17 20:49 UTCVendor advisory
  74. 2026-09-16 18:50 UTCEG score recompute
  75. 2026-09-16 18:50 UTCVendor advisory

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-82417?
CVE-2026-82417 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on August 29, 2026. Summary qs.stringify throws a TypeError when it serializes an object whose own constructor property has a truthy, non-callable isBuffer member. utils.isBuffer duck-types buffers by calling obj.constructor.isBuffer(obj) after checking only that the property is truthy, so a value such as {…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-82417 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-82417 was published on August 29, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of September 3, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-82417 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-82417 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.4% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (33rd percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-82417?
CVE-2026-82417 has a CVSS base score of 5.3 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-82417?
A fix for CVE-2026-82417 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. Fixed versions, as the CVE record's CNA (Harborist) states them: "Upgrade to qs 6.16.0 or later." The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-82417 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-82417

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-82417?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.