How severe is GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp?

GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp has a CVSS score of 8.1/10, rated HIGH. Immediate patching is strongly recommended.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp?

GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp affects the following packages: jspdf (npm). Ecosystems affected: npm.

How do I fix GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp?

Update jspdf to 4.2.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp in my npm dependencies?

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

How do I mitigate GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

Stop passing untrusted input into the interpreter or shell: call the affected binary with an argument array rather than a composed command string, reject anything outside a strict allowlist of expected values, and run the component under an account that cannot reach beyond the work it legitimately does.

Is GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp 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-9vjf-qc39-jprp?

GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 1.0%, placing it in the 62th 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-9vjf-qc39-jprp?

GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp is classified as Code Injection (CWE-94), CWE-116 (CWE-116). These weakness types describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation. This is a high-impact weakness class that often enables remote code execution or data exposure.

When was GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp was published on February 19, 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

HIGH severity

jsPDF has a PDF Object Injection via Unsanitized Input in addJS MethodGHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp

HIGHFix: parallax/jsPDF@56b46d4

GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp is a high-severity (CVSS 8.1) Code Injection vulnerability in jspdf. A fix is available for jspdf — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Also known asCVE-2026-25755

Published

Feb 19, 2026

Updated

Sep 10, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Nov 7, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

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-9vjf-qc39-jprp.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

1.0%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk0.00%

Lower risk than most CVEs62th percentile — riskier than 62% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

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

How urgent is this, really

Where this sits among everything scored

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.

3Kother npm packages depend on this — each one inherits the vulnerability until it's patched upstream

jspdfnpm

22.0Mdownloads / week

Description

Impact

User control of the argument of the addJS method allows an attacker to inject arbitrary PDF objects into the generated document. By crafting a payload that escapes the JavaScript string delimiter, an attacker can execute malicious actions or alter the document structure, impacting any user who opens the generated PDF.

import { jsPDF } from "jspdf";
const doc = new jsPDF();
// Payload:
// 1. ) closes the JS string.
// 2. > closes the current dictionary.
// 3. /AA ... injects an "Additional Action" that executes on focus/open.
const maliciousPayload = "console.log('test');) >> /AA << /O << /S /JavaScript /JS (app.alert('Hacked!')) >> >>";

doc.addJS(maliciousPayload);
doc.save("vulnerable.pdf");

Patches

The vulnerability has been fixed in [email protected].

Workarounds

Escape parentheses in user-provided JavaScript code before passing them to the addJS method.

References

https://github.com/ZeroXJacks/CVEs/blob/main/2026/CVE-2026-25755.md

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
📦npm	`jspdf`	all versions	4.2.0`npm install jspdf@4.2.0`

Affected Products

1 product · 1 configurations

Application

jspdfparall

< 4.2.0

range

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for jspdf, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update jspdf to 4.2.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Stop passing untrusted input into the interpreter or shell: call the affected binary with an argument array rather than a composed command string, reject anything outside a strict allowlist of expected values, and run the component under an account that cannot reach beyond the work it legitimately does.

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.

Red HatImportant

To exploit this flaw, an attacker must be able to supply a specially crafted payload to the application using the addJS method and convince a user to open the generated PDF document with a viewer that supports embedded scripts. Due to these reasons, this vulnerability has been rated with an important severity.

Workaround published by Red Hat

To mitigate this vulnerability, sanitize the user-provided JavaScript code before passing it to the addJS method by strictly escaping backslashes and parentheses. Additionally, do not open PDF documents from untrusted sources.

Source: Red Hat security advisory for GHSA-9vjf-qc39-jprp (CC BY 4.0)

Product	Fixed in	Advisory
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security 4.8	`advanced-cluster-security/rhacs-main-rhel8:1775594119`	RHSA-2026:7110
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security 4.9	`advanced-cluster-security/rhacs-main-rhel8:1775594284`	RHSA-2026:7128

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact User control of the argument of the `addJS` method allows an attacker to inject arbitrary PDF objects into the generated document. By crafting a payload that escapes the JavaScript string delimiter, an attacker can execute malicious actions or alter the document structure, impacting any user who opens the generated PDF. ```js import { jsPDF } from "jspdf"; const doc = new jsPDF(); // Payload: // 1. ) closes the JS string. // 2. > closes the current dictionary. // 3. /AA ... injects an "Additional Action" that executes on focus/open. const maliciousPayload = "console.log('test');)