CVE-2026-4867
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 · uneditedImpact: A bad regular expression is generated any time you have three or more parameters within a single segment, separated by something that is not a period (.). For example, /:a-:b-:c or /:a-:b-:c-:d. The backtrack protection added in [email protected] only prevents ambiguity for two parameters. With three or more, the generated lookahead does not block single separator characters, so capture groups overlap and cause catastrophic backtracking. Patches: Upgrade to [email protected] Custom regex patterns in route definitions (e.g., /:a-:b([^-/]+)-:c([^-/]+)) are not affected because they override the default capture group. Workarounds: All versions can be patched by providing a custom regular expression for parameters after the first in a single segment. As long as the custom regular expression does not match the text before the parameter, you will be safe. For example, change /:a-:b-:c to /:a-:b([^-/]+)-:c([^-/]+). If paths cannot be rewritten and versions cannot be upgraded, another alternative is to limit the URL length.
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 confidenceThis is a Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) vulnerability in path-to-regexp versions prior to 0.1.13. When three or more path parameters are defined in a single segment without periods (e.g., /:a-:b-:c), the generated regex includes incomplete backtrack protection that fails to prevent overlapping capture groups, leading to catastrophic backtracking when the regex engine processes certain input strings.
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< 0.1.13CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Check installed path-to-regexp versionRun `npm list path-to-regexp` or check package.json for the path-to-regexp dependency versionAffected if Version is less than 0.1.13
-
Locate route definitions using path-to-regexpSearch source code for calls to `pathToRegexp`, `compile`, or similar path-to-regexp functions, and examine the route pattern strings passed to themAffected if Routes contain patterns with three or more path parameters in a single segment (e.g., /:a-:b-:c) without periods separating them
-
Identify vulnerable parameter patternsLook for route patterns where parameters are concatenated without delimiters, such as /:param1:param2:param3 or /:a-:b-:cAffected if Any route pattern has three or more unseparated path parameters like /:a-:b-:c
-
Verify the route is active and receiving inputCheck application logs, routing configuration, or test if the route handler is reachable and processes user inputAffected if The vulnerable route pattern is actively mounted and can receive HTTP requests
You are affected if path-to-regexp version is below 0.1.13 AND your application uses routes with three or more path parameters in a single segment without delimiters.
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.
dbcve · scoped0.1.13
Upgrade path-to-regexp to version 0.1.13 or later, or apply custom regex patterns to parameters after the first in affected route segments (e.g., /:a-:b([^-/]+)-:c([^-/]+)).
- Identify all project dependencies that use path-to-regexp (e.g., direct dependency or transitive dependency through Express, Koa, etc.)
- Update the path-to-regexp dependency in package.json to version 0.1.13 or higher
- Run 'npm install' or 'yarn install' to download the updated package
- Verify the installed version by checking node_modules/path-to-regexp/package.json
- Test all routes that use path patterns with 3+ parameters in a single segment (e.g., /:a-:b-:c) to ensure they still function correctly
- If using a package manager lockfile, commit the updated lockfile
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-4867 — 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-2026-4867 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