CVE-2026-54269
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 · uneditedprotobufjs compiles protobuf definitions into JavaScript (JS) functions. Prior to 8.6.0 and 7.6.3, protobufjs accepted certain schema-derived names that could collide with properties used by protobufjs runtime helpers. The known affected names are fields named hasOwnProperty, field or oneof names such as $type when loaded through protobufjs JSON/reflection descriptors, and service methods whose generated helper name is rpcCall. When affected message or service types were used, protobufjs could read schema-controlled data where it expected an own-property helper, reflected type metadata, or the base RPC helper. This could cause deterministic exceptions or recursive calls in affected decode post-checks, verification, object conversion, reflected JSON serialization, or protobufjs RPC helper invocation. This vulnerability is fixed in 8.6.0 and 7.6.3.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceprotobufjs versions prior to 8.6.0 and 7.6.3 accepted schema-derived field names (specifically 'hasOwnProperty', '$type', and 'rpcCall') that collide with internal runtime helper properties. When protobufjs processes messages or services containing these names, it reads schema-controlled data where it expects its own helper methods, causing deterministic exceptions or recursive calls during decode, verification, object conversion, JSON serialization, or RPC invocation.
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< 7.6.3>= 8.0.0, < 8.6.0< 1.3.3>= 2.0.0, < 2.5.1CVSS 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 installed protobufjs versionRun 'npm list protobufjs' or check package.json dependencies for protobufjs versionAffected if Version is < 7.6.3 or >= 8.0.0 and < 8.6.0
-
Identify installed protobufjs-cli versionRun 'npm list protobufjs-cli' or check package.json dependencies for protobufjs-cli versionAffected if Version is < 1.3.3 or >= 2.0.0 and < 2.5.1
-
Audit .proto schema files for problematic field namesSearch .proto files for field definitions named 'hasOwnProperty' or '$type' using grep or text searchAffected if Schema contains fields named 'hasOwnProperty' or '$type'
-
Audit .proto service definitions for rpcCall generationSearch .proto files for service definitions with methods that could generate 'rpcCall' helper conflictsAffected if Schema contains service definitions that would produce 'rpcCall' helper names in the generated code
You are affected if protobufjs or protobufjs-cli versions fall within the vulnerable ranges AND your schemas contain field or method names 'hasOwnProperty', '$type', or 'rpcCall' that would collide with internal helpers.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped1.3.32.5.17.6.3
Upgrade protobufjs to version 8.6.0 or 7.6.3 or later. If upgrade is not immediately possible, audit protobuf schemas for field names 'hasOwnProperty', '$type', or service methods that would generate 'rpcCall' helpers and rename them.
protobufjs: upgrade to 7.6.3 (for 7.x users) or 8.6.0 (for 8.x users); protobufjs-cli: upgrade to 1.3.3 (for 1.x users) or 2.5.1 (for 2.x users)
- Check the currently installed protobufjs version by running 'npm list protobufjs' or 'npm list protobufjs-cli'
- For protobufjs: if using version 7.x, upgrade to 7.6.3; if using version 8.x, upgrade to 8.6.0 by running 'npm install protobufjs@^7.6.3' or 'npm install protobufjs@^8.6.0'
- For protobufjs-cli: if using version 1.x, upgrade to 1.3.3; if using version 2.x, upgrade to 2.5.1 by running 'npm install protobufjs-cli@^1.3.3' or 'npm install protobufjs-cli@^2.5.1'
- After upgrading, run your test suite to verify the changes do not break existing functionality
- If using a package-lock.json, consider deleting it and regenerating to ensure clean dependency resolution
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-54269 — 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-2026-54269 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