MulterApplication · Expressjs

CVE-2026-5079

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-06-15
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 2.2.0 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Impact: multer versions 1.0.0 through 2.1.1 and 3.0.0-alpha.1 are vulnerable to a Denial of Service via deeply nested field names in multipart form data. The append-field dependency parses bracket notation in field names with no limit on nesting depth, allowing an attacker to force allocation of deeply nested object structures that consume CPU and memory. A single HTTP request with a crafted multipart body is sufficient to exploit this. Patches: Users should upgrade to multer 2.2.0 (2.x line) or 3.0.0-alpha.2 (3.x prerelease) and configure the new limits.fieldNestingDepth option to the minimum depth their application requires. Workarounds: Set limits.fields to a reasonable value to reduce the number of fields an attacker can send per request. This does not fully mitigate the issue but limits the impact.

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 confidence

multer's append-field dependency parses bracket notation in multipart form field names without limiting nesting depth, allowing attackers to craft requests with deeply nested field names (e.g., field[a][b][c][d]...) that cause excessive CPU and memory allocation leading to DoS.

MitigationUpgrade to multer 2.2.0 or 3.0.0-alpha.2 and configure the new limits.fieldNestingDepth option to match the minimum nesting depth required by the application.

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
MulterApplication
Affected:>= 1.0.0, < 2.2.0= 3.0.0

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check installed multer version
    Run 'npm list multer' or check package.json dependencies to see the exact version installed
    Affected if The installed version is >= 1.0.0 and < 2.2.0, or exactly 3.0.0 (not 3.0.0-alpha.2 or later)
  2. Identify if multer handles multipart form uploads
    Search the codebase for multer() middleware usage, particularly looking for lines that initialize multer (e.g., 'var upload = multer()' or 'app.use(multer(...))')
    Affected if Multer is initialized and used to process multipart form data in the application
  3. Check if multipart endpoints are externally exposed
    Review routes or endpoints that use the multer middleware (e.g., upload.single(), upload.array(), upload.fields()) and determine if they accept incoming requests from untrusted sources
    Affected if Any route using multer middleware is accessible to external/unauthenticated users
  4. Verify fieldNestingDepth limit configuration (if using patched version)
    If multer 2.2.0+ is installed, check multer configuration for the 'limits.fieldNestingDepth' option to see if it is set
    Affected if The limits.fieldNestingDepth option is not configured or is set to a very high value, allowing deeply nested field names

You are affected if your application runs a vulnerable multer version (>=1.0.0, <2.2.0 or exactly 3.0.0) and processes multipart form submissions from external sources without restrictive nesting depth limits.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 2.2.0 or later
Fixed in 2.2.0
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to multer 2.2.0 or 3.0.0-alpha.2 and configure the new limits.fieldNestingDepth option to match the minimum nesting depth required by the application.

Recommended fix High confidence

multer 2.2.0 (2.x line stable) or 3.0.0-alpha.2 (3.x prerelease)

  1. Upgrade multer to version 2.2.0 (recommended stable release) or 3.0.0-alpha.2 (prerelease) using your package manager (e.g., npm install [email protected])
  2. After upgrading, configure the new limits.fieldNestingDepth option in your multer setup to the minimum depth your application requires to limit nested object structures
Caveat 3.0.0-alpha.2 is an alpha prerelease version; upgrading to 2.2.0 is the safer stable option

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Multer Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
7.0 hours of engineering $1,240
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-5079 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-5079 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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