How severe is GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8?

No CVSS score has been assigned to GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8 yet. Review the advisory details and affected package list to assess your exposure.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8?

GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8 affects the following packages: @hapi/content (npm). Ecosystems affected: npm.

How do I fix GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8?

Update @hapi/content to 6.0.2 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8 in my npm dependencies?

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

How do I mitigate GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8 if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

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.

Is GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8 actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8 yet. This does not mean the vulnerability cannot be exploited — absence of public exploits does not imply safety. Apply the recommended fix and use O3 Security to monitor your exposure.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8?

GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8 has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.5%, placing it in the 39th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8?

GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8 is classified as CWE-436 (CWE-436). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8 published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8 was published on May 27, 2026 and was last updated on September 10, 2026. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

📦 npm

Not in CISA KEV

@hapi/content header parser has a parameter smuggling issue that allows upload-filter bypass via duplicate parametersGHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8

Fix: hapijs/content@3850079

GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8 is a CWE-436 vulnerability in @hapi/content. A fix is available for @hapi/content — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Also known asCVE-2026-44974

Published

May 27, 2026

Updated

Sep 10, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Oct 8, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.
A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.5%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk0.00%

Lower risk than most CVEs39th percentile — riskier than 39% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

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

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.

11other npm packages depend on this — each one inherits the vulnerability until it's patched upstream

@hapi/contentnpm

1.3Mdownloads / week

Description

Impact

The two parsers resolved duplicates inconsistently and silently:

Content.disposition() retained the last occurrence of each parameter.
Content.type() retained the first occurrence of charset and boundary.

Either behavior creates a parameter-smuggling primitive when another component in the request-processing chain (a WAF, reverse proxy, security filter, or alternate parser) resolves duplicates the opposite way. The primary attack vector is upload filename allowlist bypass:

Content-Disposition: form-data; name="file"; filename="safe.txt"; filename="shell.php"

Patches

The issue has been patched in 6.0.2.

Workarounds

Pre or post validate headers looking for duplicates.

Resources

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
📦npm	`@hapi/content`	all versions	6.0.2`npm install @hapi/content@6.0.2`

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for @hapi/content, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update @hapi/content to 6.0.2 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
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

### Impact The two parsers resolved duplicates inconsistently and silently: - `Content.disposition()` retained the last occurrence of each parameter. - `Content.type()` retained the first occurrence of charset and boundary. Either behavior creates a parameter-smuggling primitive when another component in the request-processing chain (a WAF, reverse proxy, security filter, or alternate parser) resolves duplicates the opposite way. The primary attack vector is upload filename allowlist bypass: `Content-Disposition: form-data; name="file"; filename="safe.txt"; filename="shell.php"` ### Patches

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-36hh-x5p5-jgc8 in your dependencies?

Find it across npm, including transitive dependencies.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works