Skip to main content
← Vulnerabilities

undici vulnerable to cache poisoning and cross-user disclosure via intermediate redirect hops

Only affects undici 7.30.1 to before 7.30.2 and 8.12.2 to before 8.12.4, and only with an originless Agent composing compose(redirect(), cache()) on a shared cache. Fixed in 7.30.2 and 8.12.4.

Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.

7.4HighCNA
Exploited
No known exploitation
Fix
Fixed in 7.30.2, 8.12.4
Who is exposed
Not reported

Do first: Upgrade to a fixed version: 7.30.2, 8.12.4.

Published
Last modified
24/100 · provisional
Unclear
None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub

Summary

undici, an HTTP client for Node.js, can cache a redirected response under a trusted URL or serve one user's private response to another caller when a redirect passes through an untrusted origin. An attacker who controls a redirect target can do this remotely, without logging in and without any user action.

Read the original description

undici is an HTTP client for Node.js. In versions 7.30.1 and 8.12.2 through 8.12.3, when an originless Agent composes the redirect and shared cache interceptors, undici decides whether to store the final response under the original request key by inspecting only the final redirect hop, which bypasses the earlier fix for CVE-2026-109829 that compared only the initial and final origins. A redirect that bounces through an untrusted origin and returns to the trusted origin is still cached under the trusted key, an intermediate hop's Vary is dropped so a response that varies on Authorization or Cookie can be served to a different user, and an intermediate hop's no-cache or default-uncacheable status is ignored so a non-storable redirect is laundered into a cacheable entry. An attacker who controls a redirect target from a trusted URL can poison the cached entry for that URL or have a private, per-user response served to a later caller. The issue is fixed in undici 7.30.2 and 8.12.4, and users should upgrade to one of those versions or later. As a workaround, compose the interceptors as cache then redirect, use per-origin dispatchers and cache stores, or disable shared caching on redirect-capable requests.

cve.now Index

24Pcve.now Index 24 of 100 · methodology v3 · provisional
  • Exploitation?/40Unknown. No CISA SSVC exploitation rating yet
  • Exposure17/25No login or user action needed, reachable over the network without a login · Unknown: Advisories don't say whether default setups are affected
  • Reach?/20Unknown. No tracked technology or package matched
  • Severity7.4/10CVSS 7.4
  • No patch0/5No signal

What would change the score

  • Would score about 69 if added to CISA KEV
  • Would score about 64 if CISA's SSVC rates exploitation active
  • Would score about 29 if advisories confirm default setups are exposed

What to do

  • Upgrade to a fixed version: 7.30.2, 8.12.4.

  • Workaround: Compose the interceptors as compose(cache(), redirect()), use per-origin dispatchers and cache stores, or disable shared caching on redirect-capable requests

Timeline

  1. CVE published
  2. First seen by cve.now

Affected versions

  • undici undici

    From 7.30.1 · fixed in 7.30.2; From 8.12.2 · fixed in 8.12.4

Evidence 2

  1. Advisory
  2. Link

Corrections

None so far.

Something wrong on this page? Report an error. Every fix is listed here.

Questions about CVE-2026-116592

Is CVE-2026-116592 being exploited?

It is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and CISA's SSVC assessment does not mark exploitation as active. That does not mean it has not been attacked: vendors and researchers can report attacks before CISA lists them. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data

What does this mean?

When a request follows a redirect, undici can store the response under the original trusted URL. An attacker who controls the redirect target can therefore overwrite that cached entry, or get a private per-user response served to a later caller.Source: github.com

Which versions are affected by CVE-2026-116592?

undici: from 7.30.1 before 7.30.2; from 8.12.2 before 8.12.4.Source: cve.now feed data

Am I affected, and how do I check?

Versions 7.30.1 up to 7.30.2 and 8.12.2 up to 8.12.4 are in range. The setup also matters: it needs an originless Agent, a shared cache store, and interceptors composed as compose(redirect(), cache()). To check, look at the undici version in your lockfile and at how the Agent and interceptors are configured.Source: github.com

How do I fix CVE-2026-116592?

Upgrade to undici 7.30.2 or 8.12.4, depending on which release line you use.Source: github.com