CVE-2026-82562

LOWPre-NVD 3.73.7
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 3.7 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: MODERATE) published 2026-09-02. A secondary CVSS source baseline 3.7; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, a secondary CVSS source
Elevated

Also known asEUVD-2026-68141 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-x5fp-wj9c-mxmx (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

3.7EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • CISA's Vulnrichment rates exploitation as PoC; EchelonGraph holds no exploit-code reference for it
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.5%CVSS: 3.7Exploit: No code on recordExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

Fixed versions, as the CVE record's CNA (Harborist) states them: "Upgrade to qs 6.16.0 or later."

Summary

When qs.parse is called with comma: true and throwOnLimitExceeded: true, a comma-separated value under a bracket-push key (a[]=1,2,3,4) is split into an array without being compared against arrayLimit, while the same value under a flat key (a=1,2,3,4), an indexed key (a[0]=), a nested key (a[b]=), or a dotted key (a.b= with allowDots) throws the documented RangeError. A single parameter such as a[]=1,2,2,... therefore produces an inner array of arbitrary length even though the caller opted into the hard limit. This is the []= key form that the fix for CVE-2026-2391 (qs 6.14.2) did not cover.

Details

In lib/parse.js, a comma-separated value under a []= key is split and then wrapped as a single nested element (val = [val], so that each a[]=x,y group counts as one element of the outer array). The arrayLimit check that 6.14.2 added for comma values runs after that wrap, so for []= parts it only ever saw the wrapper of length 1. 6.15.3 added a pre-split comma count so that an oversized value throws before it is allocated, but gated it on an isFlatArrayValue flag that parseValues set to false for any part containing []=, and did not pass it for object-valued input, so the gap remained.

PoC

var qs = require('qs');

var options = { comma: true, arrayLimit: 3, throwOnLimitExceeded: true };

qs.parse('a=1,2,3,4', options); // RangeError: Array limit exceeded. Only 3 elements allowed in an array.

qs.parse('a[]=1,2,3,4', options); // { a: [ [ '1', '2', '3', '4' ] ] } (no throw)

qs.parse('a[]=' + '1,'.repeat(1000000) + '1', { comma: true, arrayLimit: 20, throwOnLimitExceeded: true });

// no throw; a 1,000,001-element inner array is allocated

Fix

lib/parse.js, applied in 8859c37 on main and released as v6.16.0: the isFlatArrayValue gate is removed, so every comma-split value is counted against arrayLimit before splitting regardless of key form. An in-limit group under a[]= still counts as one element of the outer array, and the default (throwOnLimitExceeded: false) path is unchanged.

Affected versions

>=6.14.2 <6.16.0, fixed in v6.16.0.

v6.14.2 introduced arrayLimit enforcement for comma values (the fix for CVE-2026-2391) but only for values not under a []= key, and every release from v6.14.2 through v6.15.3 has the same gap. v6.14.0 and v6.14.1, where throwOnLimitExceeded exists but does not apply to any comma form, are covered by CVE-2026-2391 rather than this record. Earlier lines (6.7.x through 6.13.x) have comma but no throwOnLimitExceeded, so there is no hard cap on any comma path to bypass; releases before 6.7.0 have no comma option.

Impact

An unauthenticated attacker who can reach an application that parses untrusted query strings or urlencoded bodies with both comma: true and throwOnLimitExceeded: true (both non-default) can bypass the configured limit with a single a[]= parameter and force the parser to allocate an array proportional to the request size. The cost is strictly linear in the attacker-supplied bytes (about 0.1 microseconds and 6 to 7 retained bytes per input byte; the same out-of-memory threshold as the documented default throwOnLimitExceeded: false path), so a transport-layer request or body size limit bounds it completely (and node's default maximum HTTP header size of 16 KB already bounds the request line, so multi-megabyte payloads need a body parser). The impact is that an opt-in hard limit fails open on one key spelling, not unbounded allocation from a small input.

CVSS v3
3.7
EG Score
3.7LOWmedium confidence
EG Risk
33
EG Risk 33/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity37% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 3.7 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation40% × 40%
EchelonGraph's fixed weight for EG-KEV Tier 3 (Elevated): a constant, not a probability.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.5%
EPSS %ILE
45th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (3.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 3.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
3.7 LOWCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

August 29, 2026

Last Modified

September 3, 2026

Patch Availability(5)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
redhatdevspaces/dashboard-rhel9:17891628842026-09-17redhat
redhatgrafana13-2-main-13.2.1-0.1.hum12026-09-03redhat
redhatgrafana13-1-main-13.1.3-0.4.hum12026-09-02redhat
redhatgrafana12-4-main-12.4.9-0.4.hum12026-08-29redhat
npmqs @ 6.16.0 (fixes >= 6.14.2, <= 6.15.3)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(4 across 4 ecosystems)
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
node-qs6.11.0+ds+~6.9.7-3 ... 6.16.0+ds+~6.15.1-1 (9 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
node-qs6.13.0+ds+~6.9.16-1 ... 6.16.0+ds+~6.15.1-1 (7 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
node-qs6.13.0+ds+~6.9.16-1 ... 6.15.2+ds+~6.15.1-1 (6 versions)
  • every version up to 6.16.0+ds+~6.15.1-1: fixed in 6.16.0+ds+~6.15.1-1
—
npm(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
qs—
  • 6.14.2 up to 6.16.0: fixed in 6.16.0
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 7× in last 7d / 33× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 111 rows on record for this CVE, as 98 entries (2 repeats merged).

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 2 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 11 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-13 16:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  2. 2026-11-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  3. 2026-11-11 16:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  4. 2026-11-10 16:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  5. 2026-11-09 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  6. 2026-11-08 16:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  7. 2026-11-07 16:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  8. 2026-11-06 16:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  9. 2026-11-05 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  10. 2026-11-04 16:37 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  11. 2026-11-03 16:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  12. 2026-11-02 16:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  13. 2026-11-01 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  14. 2026-11-01 07:38 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-x5fp-wj9c-mxmx · GitHub severity MODERATE · GitHub CVSS 3.7
  15. 2026-11-01 07:38 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  16. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  17. 2026-10-30 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  18. 2026-10-29 17:40 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  19. 2026-10-29 17:40 UTCVendor advisory
  20. 2026-10-29 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  21. 2026-10-28 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  22. 2026-10-27 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  23. 2026-10-27 04:25 UTCOSV refresh
  24. 2026-10-26 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
  25. 2026-10-25 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 45th percentile
Show 73 more
  1. 2026-10-25 13:57 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  2. 2026-10-24 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  3. 2026-10-23 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  4. 2026-10-22 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  5. 2026-10-21 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  6. 2026-10-20 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  7. 2026-10-19 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  8. 2026-10-18 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  9. 2026-10-18 03:08 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  10. 2026-10-17 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  11. 2026-10-16 16:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  12. 2026-10-15 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  13. 2026-10-14 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 44th percentile
  14. 2026-10-13 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  15. 2026-10-12 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  16. 2026-10-12 14:55 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  17. 2026-10-11 19:19 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  18. 2026-10-11 16:36 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  19. 2026-10-11 13:54 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  20. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  21. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  22. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  23. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  24. 2026-10-08 01:48 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  25. 2026-10-08 01:48 UTCVendor advisory
  26. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  27. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  28. 2026-10-05 17:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  29. 2026-10-05 05:15 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  30. 2026-10-05 05:15 UTCVendor advisory
  31. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  32. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  33. 2026-10-02 17:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  34. 2026-10-02 08:41 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  35. 2026-10-02 08:41 UTCVendor advisory
  36. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  37. 2026-09-30 15:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  38. 2026-09-29 12:09 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  39. 2026-09-29 12:09 UTCVendor advisory
  40. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  41. 2026-09-27 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  42. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 43rd percentile
  43. 2026-09-26 15:33 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  44. 2026-09-26 15:33 UTCVendor advisory
  45. 2026-09-24 14:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 42nd percentile
  46. 2026-09-23 18:11 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  47. 2026-09-23 18:11 UTCVendor advisory
  48. 2026-09-23 17:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  49. 2026-09-22 16:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  50. 2026-09-21 21:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  51. 2026-09-20 21:39 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  52. 2026-09-20 21:39 UTCVendor advisory
  53. 2026-09-20 20:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  54. 2026-09-18 19:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  55. 2026-09-18 01:06 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  56. 2026-09-18 01:06 UTCVendor advisory
  57. 2026-09-16 14:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  58. 2026-09-16 05:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  59. 2026-09-15 04:33 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  60. 2026-09-15 04:33 UTCVendor advisory
  61. 2026-09-15 03:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  62. 2026-09-12 08:00 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  63. 2026-09-12 08:00 UTCVendor advisory
  64. 2026-09-11 14:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  65. 2026-09-09 11:27 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  66. 2026-09-09 11:27 UTCVendor advisory
  67. 2026-09-08 22:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  68. 2026-09-06 14:54 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  69. 2026-09-06 14:54 UTCVendor advisory
  70. 2026-09-06 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  71. 2026-09-05 15:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  72. 2026-09-04 05:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  73. 2026-09-03 15:08 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-82562?
CVE-2026-82562 is a low-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on August 29, 2026. Summary When qs.parse is called with comma: true and throwOnLimitExceeded: true, a comma-separated value under a bracket-push key (a[]=1,2,3,4) is split into an array without being compared against arrayLimit, while the same value under a flat key (a=1,2,3,4), an indexed key (a[0]=), a nested key…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-82562 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-82562 was published on August 29, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of September 3, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-82562 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-82562 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.5% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (45th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-82562?
CVE-2026-82562 has a CVSS base score of 3.7 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-82562?
A fix for CVE-2026-82562 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. Fixed versions, as the CVE record's CNA (Harborist) states them: "Upgrade to qs 6.16.0 or later." The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-82562 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-82562

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-82562?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.