CVE-2014-10064
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThe qs module before 1.0.0 does not have an option or default for specifying object depth and when parsing a string representing a deeply nested object will block the event loop for long periods of time. An attacker could leverage this to cause a temporary denial-of-service condition, for example, in a web application, other requests would not be processed while this blocking is occurring.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe qs module before version 1.0.0 lacks depth limiting when parsing query string parameters containing deeply nested objects, causing the Node.js event loop to block for extended periods while processing such input. This creates a denial-of-service vulnerability where maliciously crafted deeply nested query strings can render the application unresponsive to other requests.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 1.0.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Locate the qs module dependencyInspect your project's package.json file to find qs in the dependencies section. Also check node_modules/qs/package.json to confirm the installed version.Affected if The qs module version is below 1.0.0 or the dependency is not pinned to a specific version.
-
Verify the installed qs versionRun 'npm list qs' in your project directory or check the version field in node_modules/qs/package.json.Affected if The installed version is less than 1.0.0.
-
Identify query string parsing usageSearch your codebase for calls to qs.parse() or require('qs') to see where query string parsing occurs.Affected if Your application uses qs.parse() to process query string parameters from incoming requests.
-
Check for depth limiting configurationReview the qs.parse() calls in your code for any options parameter that includes a depth or depthLimit setting.Affected if No depth limiting option is passed to qs.parse() and the version is below 1.0.0.
-
Test with deeply nested input (optional)If you have a test environment, send a request with a query string like 'a[b][c][d][e][f][g][h][i][j]=value' and measure the response time.Affected if The application becomes unresponsive or significantly slows down when processing deeply nested query strings.
You are affected if your project uses the qs module with a version below 1.0.0 and parses untrusted query string input without depth limiting configured.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor data1.0.0
Upgrade the qs module to version 1.0.0 or later which includes depth limiting options. Additionally, implement request timeouts and consider adding rate limiting on API endpoints that parse query strings.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-10064 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2014-10064 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data