CVE-2026-9675
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: The undici WebSocket client enforces maxPayloadSize per-frame but does not enforce the cumulative size of fragmented uncompressed messages. A malicious WebSocket server can stream many small fragments that each pass per-frame validation but collectively exceed the configured limit, causing unbounded memory growth in the client process. The result is memory exhaustion and a denial of service. Affected applications are those using the undici WebSocket client (new WebSocket(...)) that can be induced to connect to an attacker-controlled or compromised WebSocket endpoint. This is a regression specific to undici 8.1.0. The 6.25.0 line shipped the equivalent cumulative check from the start and is unaffected. The 7.x line never had the maxPayloadSize feature and is also unaffected. Patches: Upgrade to undici >= 8.5.0. Workarounds: No workaround is available. The fix must be applied through an upgrade.
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 undici WebSocket client in version 8.1.0 validates maxPayloadSize per-frame but fails to track cumulative size across fragmented uncompressed messages. An attacker-controlled server can send many small fragments that individually pass validation but collectively exceed the configured limit, causing unbounded memory growth and 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>= 8.0.0, < 8.5.0CVSS 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 undici installation and versionRun 'npm list undici' in your project directory, or inspect your package.json dependencies for the undici entryAffected if The installed version is 8.0.0 through 8.4.x (any version >= 8.0.0 and < 8.5.0)
-
Confirm WebSocket client usageSearch your codebase for imports of WebSocket from undici, such as 'import { WebSocket } from "undici"' or require statementsAffected if Your application imports or uses the undici WebSocket client
-
Check for maxPayloadSize configurationSearch your codebase for WebSocket instantiation with maxPayloadSize option, for example: new WebSocket(url, { maxPayloadSize: <value> })Affected if You configure maxPayloadSize when creating WebSocket connections (the vulnerability exploits this setting by sending fragments that individually pass the limit)
-
Verify fragmented message handlingReview WebSocket implementation to confirm your server can send fragmented WebSocket messages (multiple small fragments forming one logical message)Affected if Your undici WebSocket client connects to servers that send fragmented messages and maxPayloadSize is set
You are affected if your project uses undici version 8.0.0 through 8.4.x with the WebSocket client and has maxPayloadSize configured, allowing a malicious server to send fragmented messages that exceed the cumulative limit.
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 · scoped8.5.0
Upgrade undici to version 8.5.0 or higher to receive the cumulative fragment size validation fix. No workarounds exist; the vulnerability requires library upgrade.
undici >= 8.5.0
- Identify the package manager used in your project (npm, yarn, or pnpm)
- Update the undici dependency in package.json to version 8.5.0 or higher using npm install undici@^8.5.0 (or equivalent for your package manager)
- Run the package manager install command to update dependencies
- Verify the installed version meets the requirement: npm list undici
- Test your application's WebSocket functionality to ensure compatibility with the new version
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-2026-9675 — 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-2026-9675 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