CVE-2020-15168
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 · uneditednode-fetch before versions 2.6.1 and 3.0.0-beta.9 did not honor the size option after following a redirect, which means that when a content size was over the limit, a FetchError would never get thrown and the process would end without failure. For most people, this fix will have a little or no impact. However, if you are relying on node-fetch to gate files above a size, the impact could be significant, for example: If you don't double-check the size of the data after fetch() has completed, your JS thread could get tied up doing work on a large file (DoS) and/or cost you money in computing.
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 · moderate confidencenode-fetch versions before 2.6.1 and 3.0.0-beta.9 failed to enforce the size limit option after following HTTP redirects, allowing unlimited data downloads when a redirect occurred, potentially causing resource exhaustion or unexpected costs.
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< 2.6.1= 3.0.0CVSS 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
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
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.
-
Identify node-fetch versionRun 'npm list node-fetch' or check package.json dependencies to see the installed version of node-fetchAffected if Version is below 2.6.1 or exactly 3.0.0 (including 3.0.0-beta.1 through 3.0.0-beta.8)
-
Check for size limit usageSearch code for 'max' or 'size' option passed to fetch calls (e.g., fetch(url, { max: ... }) or fetch(url, { size: ... }))Affected if Code uses max/size limits in fetch options and the version is vulnerable
-
Check redirect behaviorSearch code for fetch calls with 'follow' option set (default is 1 redirect, but may be higher) or check if external APIs being called are known to redirectAffected if Fetch calls follow HTTP redirects (follow option > 0) and size limit is configured
-
Verify redirect + size limit combinationCode inspection: find any fetch calls that both follow redirects (follow > 0) AND specify a size/max limit optionAffected if Both redirect following and size limiting are used together in the same fetch call on a vulnerable version
You are affected if you use node-fetch versions below 2.6.1 (or exactly 3.0.0) and your code both follows HTTP redirects and relies on a size limit option to bound response sizes.
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 data2.6.1
Upgrade node-fetch to version 2.6.1 or later (or 3.0.0-beta.9+) to enforce size limits correctly across redirects, and audit existing code that relies on size limits for additional protection.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-15168 — 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-2020-15168 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