CVE-2026-7768
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@fastify/accepts-serializer cached serializer-selection results keyed by the request Accept header without a size limit or eviction policy. A remote unauthenticated client could send many distinct but matching Accept header variants to make the cache grow unbounded, eventually exhausting the Node.js heap and crashing the process. Versions <= 6.0.3 are affected. Update to 6.0.4 or later, which bounds the cache via an LRU with a default size of 100 entries, configurable through the new cacheSize plugin option.
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 confidenceThe @fastify/accepts-serializer plugin cached serializer-selection results keyed by the HTTP Accept header without any size limit or eviction policy. A remote unauthenticated attacker could send numerous distinct Accept header variants to cause unbounded cache growth, eventually exhausting Node.js heap memory and crashing the 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< 6.0.4CVSS 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 if @fastify/accepts-serializer is installedRun 'npm list @fastify/accepts-serializer' or inspect package.json dependencies to see if the package is listedAffected if The package is present in node_modules or package.json dependencies
-
Check the installed versionRun 'npm list @fastify/accepts-serializer' to see the exact version number, or check the version in node_modules/@fastify/accepts-serializer/package.jsonAffected if The installed version is less than 6.0.4 (for example, 6.0.3, 6.0.2, 6.0.1, 6.0.0, or any version below 6.0.4)
-
Verify the plugin is registered in the Fastify appSearch the application source code for 'accepts-serializer' or 'fastify.acceptsSerializer' to confirm the plugin is being usedAffected if The plugin code is imported and registered with a Fastify instance using fastify.register() or similar
-
Determine if the service is network-accessibleCheck server configuration for binding address (0.0.0.0 or public IP versus 127.0.0.1) and whether authentication/authorization guards are in place before Accept header processingAffected if The HTTP server listens on a public or external interface (not localhost only) and accepts requests without authentication
You are affected if @fastify/accepts-serializer version below 6.0.4 is installed, the plugin is actively used in your Fastify application, and your service is accessible over the network to unauthenticated clients who can send arbitrary Accept headers.
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 · scoped6.0.4
Update @fastify/accepts-serializer from any version <= 6.0.3 to version 6.0.4 or later, which implements an LRU cache with a default size of 100 entries and exposes a configurable cacheSize option.
6.0.4
- Check the current version of @fastify/accepts-serializer in your project by reviewing package.json or running npm list @fastify/accepts-serializer
- Update @fastify/accepts-serializer to version 6.0.4 or later using your package manager (e.g., npm install @fastify/accepts-serializer@^6.0.4, pnpm add @fastify/accepts-serializer@^6.0.4, or yarn add @fastify/accepts-serializer@^6.0.4)
- Run your test suite to verify the application functions correctly after the update
- Optional: If a custom cache size is needed, configure the cacheSize option in your Fastify plugin registration (the default LRU cache size is 100 entries)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7768 — 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-2026-7768 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