CVE-2026-59879
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 · uneditedImmutable.js provides many Persistent Immutable data structures. Prior to 4.3.9 and 5.1.8, List#set, List#setSize, List#setIn, List#updateIn, and the functional set, setIn, and updateIn mishandle an index or size in the range 2 ** 30 to 2 ** 31 in setListBounds in src/List.js, causing an empty List to enter an uncatchable infinite loop, a populated List to allocate without bound until process abort, or setSize to silently wrap large values. This issue is fixed in versions 4.3.9 and 5.1.8.
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 confidenceImmutable.js versions prior to 4.3.9 and 5.1.8 have a vulnerability in List manipulation functions (set, setSize, setIn, updateIn) where indices or sizes between 2^30 and 2^31 are mishandled in setListBounds. This causes either an uncatchable infinite loop with empty Lists, unbounded memory allocation with populated Lists until process abort, or silent integer wraparound with setSize, resulting in denial of service.
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< 4.3.9>= 5.0.0, < 5.1.8CVSS 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.
-
Identify the installed Immutable.js versionCheck package.json, package-lock.json, or run 'npm list immutable' or 'yarn list immutable' in your project directory. If using a bundler, check the resolved version in node_modules/immutable/package.json under the 'version' field.Affected if The version is below 4.3.9, or is 5.0.0 through 5.1.7 inclusive.
-
Locate List manipulation usage in codebaseSearch your codebase for calls to Immutable.List methods: .set(, .setSize(, .setIn(, or .updateIn(. Use grep or IDE search across your JavaScript/TypeScript source files.Affected if Any of these four methods are used with index or size parameters derived from user input.
-
Trace index/size parameter sourcesFor each found call to set, setSize, setIn, or updateIn, review the code to determine if the index or size argument could be controlled by external input (query parameters, API payloads, user files, or data from external services).Affected if Untrusted input can reach these methods without validation that indices are below 2^30.
-
Verify input validation on List indicesIf List manipulation methods receive user-controlled indices, check if there is explicit bounds validation ensuring indices are less than 2^30 (approximately 1,073,741,824) before the Immutable.js call.Affected if No validation exists and indices between 2^30 and 2^31 can reach the vulnerable methods.
You are affected if your environment runs a vulnerable Immutable.js version (below 4.3.9 or 5.0.0-5.1.7) AND your application passes potentially large index or size values to List.set(), List.setSize(), List.setIn(), or List.updateIn() without validating they stay below 2^30.
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 · scoped4.3.95.1.8
Upgrade Immutable.js to version 4.3.9, 5.1.8, or later to patch the vulnerable List bounds handling code.
immutable.js version 4.3.9 (for 4.x users) or 5.1.8 (for 5.x users)
- 1. Identify the current version of immutable-js in your project by checking package.json or package-lock.json
- 2. If using version < 4.3.9: run 'npm install immutable@^4.3.9' or 'yarn add immutable@^4.3.9' to upgrade to the 4.x stable fix
- 3. If using version >= 5.0.0 and < 5.1.8: run 'npm install immutable@^5.1.8' or 'yarn add immutable@^5.1.8' to upgrade to the 5.x stable fix
- 4. Run your test suite to verify the upgrade does not break existing functionality
- 5. Rebuild and redeploy your application
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $2,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-59879 — 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-2026-59879 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