VulnerabilityPublished 6 Mar 2026Updated 12 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-69654: quickjs · Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Affects quickjsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubbellard/quickjs`pkg:github/bellard/quickjs`Other threats	Affected =2025-09-13	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-69654, organizations should immediately update QuickJS to the fixed version released after the 2025-12-11 commit (fcd33c1afa7b3028531f53cd1190a3877454f6b3). If upgrading is not immediately feasible, consider implementing strict input validation and sandboxing to limit the execution of untrusted JavaScript code, especially when using the `-m` option. Monitor resource usage closely and configure memory limits conservatively to avoid low-memory conditions that trigger the vulnerability. Employ runtime monitoring and alerting for abnormal process terminations or SIGABRT signals in systems running QuickJS. For embedded or IoT devices, ensure secure update mechanisms are in place to deploy patches promptly. Additionally, restrict network exposure of services using QuickJS to trusted environments to reduce the attack surface. Finally, maintain incident response plans to quickly address potential denial-of-service incidents related to this vulnerability.

Description

A crafted JavaScript input executed with the QuickJS release 2025-09-13, fixed in commit fcd33c1afa7b3028531f53cd1190a3877454f6b3 (2025-12-11),`qjs` interpreter using the `-m` option and a low memory limit can cause an out-of-memory condition followed by an assertion failure in JS_FreeRuntime (list_empty(&rt->gc_obj_list)) during runtime cleanup. Although the engine reports an OOM error, it subsequently aborts with SIGABRT because the GC object list is not fully released. This results in a denial of service.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-69654 is denial of service, which can disrupt applications or services relying on the QuickJS engine for JavaScript execution. Organizations embedding QuickJS in constrained environments, such as IoT devices, edge computing platforms, or lightweight server-side applications, are particularly at risk. An attacker can remotely trigger the vulnerability without authentication or user interaction, causing the interpreter to abort unexpectedly and potentially leading to service outages or system instability. This could affect critical infrastructure components that depend on QuickJS for scripting or automation, resulting in operational downtime and potential cascading failures. Although no data confidentiality or integrity is compromised, the loss of availability can impact business continuity, user experience, and trust. The vulnerability's ease of exploitation and lack of prerequisites increase the risk of widespread attacks once exploit code becomes available.

CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place.
Architecture and Design
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or; uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Regular Expression Exponential Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Sustained Client Engagement (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/bellard/quickjs/issues/468 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 14 Mar 2026, 19:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-400

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats