Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
📦
📦 npm
Not in CISA KEV
MEDIUM severity

9Router has a Login Brute-Force Lockout Bypass via Spoofable X-9r-Real-Ip HeaderGHSA-32gc-64m7-hj7v

MEDIUMFix: decolua/9router@efd20be

GHSA-32gc-64m7-hj7v is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.3) CWE-307 vulnerability in 9router. A fix is available for 9router — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Also known asCVE-2026-56682
Published
Updated
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Oct 22, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

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.
  • CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-32gc-64m7-hj7v.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.5%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs40th percentile — riskier than 40% of all scored CVEsHighest risk
0.00%0.32%0.65%0.97%0.5%0.5%Oct 26Oct 26

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

How urgent is this, really

GHSA-32gc-64m7-hj7v by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). Outside the shaded patch-first corner.

Where this sits among everything scored

Of 394,415 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Counts from FIRST.org, log-scaled.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

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.

2other npm packages depend on this — each one inherits the vulnerability until it's patched upstream
9routernpm
38Kdownloads / week

Description

Summary

9router enforces a progressive login lockout (5 failed attempts → temporary 30s+ lock) keyed on the client IP. The client IP used for this limiter is taken from the X-9r-Real-Ip request header, which is intended to be set only by the bundled custom-server.js layer from the unspoofable TCP socket address. In deployment modes where requests reach Next.js directly, a remote attacker controls this header and can assign a unique value to every request. Because each distinct header value maps to a fresh limiter bucket, the lockout never triggers, enabling unlimited password guessing against the dashboard login endpoint. This was reproduced against a live instance: a fixed header value was locked out (429) after 5 attempts, while rotating the header produced unlimited 401 responses with no lockout.

Affected Component

  • src/lib/auth/loginLimiter.js
    • getClientIp() — derives the rate-limit bucket key from the client-supplied X-9r-Real-Ip header
    • checkLock() / recordFail() — per-IP progressive lockout (MAX_FAILS_BEFORE_LOCK = 5)
  • src/app/api/auth/login/route.js — login endpoint protected by the above limiter

Root Cause

The brute-force protection partitions failed-attempt counters by client IP, but obtains that IP from a client-controllable HTTP header rather than from the transport layer. getClientIp() returns the value of X-9r-Real-Ip directly. The design assumes this header is produced and sanitized only by the trusted custom-server.js wrapper. When the application is served without that wrapper, the header passes through unmodified, so the attacker chooses the bucket key. Since the lockout is per-bucket, assigning a new value per request keeps every counter below the threshold:

Untrusted Client Input
        ↓
X-9r-Real-Ip: <attacker-chosen, rotated each request>
        ↓
getClientIp()  → distinct bucket per request
        ↓
recordFail()/checkLock()  → threshold (5) never reached
        ↓
unlimited 401 attempts, no 429 lockout

Attack Scenario

  1. The instance is deployed in a mode that does not use custom-server.js, and the login endpoint is reachable by the attacker (the default bind is 0.0.0.0).

  2. The attacker submits password guesses to POST /api/auth/login, setting a different X-9r-Real-Ip value on each request (e.g., 10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.2, ...).

  3. Each request is counted against a new bucket, so the limiter always reports remaining attempts and never returns 429.

  4. The attacker continues guessing without throttling until the dashboard password is recovered, yielding an authenticated admin session.

Proof of Concept

Baseline — fixed header value (lockout enforced)

Repeated POST /api/auth/login with a constant X-9r-Real-Ip: 9.9.9.9 and body {"password":"wrong"}:

POST /api/auth/login HTTP/1.1
Host: victim.example.com:20127
X-9r-Real-Ip: 9.9.9.9
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 20
Connection: close

{"password":"wrong"}

Observed responses (sequential):

#1 → 401  {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}

#2 → 401  {"error":"Invalid password. 3 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":3}

#3 → 401  {"error":"Invalid password. 2 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":2}

#4 → 401  {"error":"Invalid password. 1 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":1}

#5 → 429  Retry-After: 30
          {"error":"Too many failed attempts. Try again in 30s. ...","retryAfter":30}

Exploit — rotated header value (lockout bypassed)

Same request and body, but a different X-9r-Real-Ip per request, sent while 9.9.9.9 was already locked:

POST /api/auth/login HTTP/1.1
Host: victim.example.com:20127
X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.1
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 20
Connection: close

{"password":"wrong"}

Observed responses:

X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.1 → 401  {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}

X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.2 → 401  {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}

X-9r-Real-Ip: 10.0.0.3 → 401  {"error":"Invalid password. 4 attempt(s) left before lockout.","remainingBeforeLock":4}
<img width="1211" height="814" alt="Screenshot 2026-06-19 183338" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/07e37cf3-1860-4a06-8b27-97a5f6b9be64" /> <img width="1208" height="816" alt="Screenshot 2026-06-19 183408" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/27021c5c-cb29-4649-887e-8de46f4c6e1c" />

Every rotated value resets to "4 attempt(s) left" and never returns 429, demonstrating unbounded guessing.

Impact

The login brute-force/credential-stuffing protection can be fully neutralized by a remote, unauthenticated attacker. This permits unlimited password guessing against the dashboard login endpoint, materially increasing the likelihood of account compromise. A recovered password yields an authenticated administrative session over the 9router dashboard and its protected APIs. The bypass is especially impactful given the default network bind (0.0.0.0) and the existence of a default dashboard password, both of which lower the effort required to succeed.

Remediation

  • Do not derive the rate-limit key from a client-controllable header. Base getClientIp() on the transport-level peer address (req.socket.remoteAddress) for the limiter bucket.
  • Only honor forwarded client-IP headers when they originate from explicitly trusted, configured proxy infrastructure.
  • If custom-server.js is required for the security model, fail closed when its trusted marker is absent, and strip/reject any inbound client-supplied X-9r-* headers at the edge before they reach the limiter.
  • Consider a global (non-bucketed) attempt ceiling and exponential backoff as defense-in-depth so that header manipulation cannot reset all counters.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
📦npm9routerall versions0.5.8npm install 9router@0.5.8

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for 9router, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

  2. Fix

    Update 9router to 0.5.8 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-32gc-64m7-hj7v is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. Workarounds

    If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

Frequently Asked Questions

# Summary 9router enforces a progressive login lockout (5 failed attempts → temporary 30s+ lock) keyed on the client IP. The client IP used for this limiter is taken from the X-9r-Real-Ip request header, which is intended to be set only by the bundled custom-server.js layer from the unspoofable TCP socket address. In deployment modes where requests reach Next.js directly, a remote attacker controls this header and can assign a unique value to every request. Because each distinct header value maps to a fresh limiter bucket, the lockout never triggers, enabling unlimited password guessing again
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-32gc-64m7-hj7v in your dependencies?

Find it across npm, including transitive dependencies.

9Router has a Login Brute-Force Lockout Bypass via…