VulnerabilityPublished 14 Aug 2026Updated 17 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-50029: sunnyadn js-toml · Incorrect Comparison

Affects sunnyadn js-tomlSource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 1.1.2 as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS

0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation: Proof of concept is public or traded
Automatable: Attackers can reliably automate steps 1–4 of the kill chain
Technical impact: Limited control over the software or limited information exposure

CISA SSVC assessment, 2026-08-17.

Patch

Available – fixed in 1.1.2

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

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

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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

t = 0 is the CVE’s publication on cve.org

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CISA SSVC: proof of concept public
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

CVE ID reserved
by GitHub, Inc.
2 Jun 202622:46 UTC, 73 days before disclosure
CVE published
on cve.org
14 Aug 202619:08 UTC, t = 0
CISA SSVC assessment
proof of concept public
17 Aug 202619:34 UTC, 3 days after disclosure

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), CISA SSVC, 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

Upgrade sunnyadn js-toml to 1.1.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
sunnyadnjs-toml	Affected <1.1.2	Fixed in 1.1.2

Description

js-toml is a TOML parser for JavaScript, Prior to version 1.1.2, the interpreter checks whether a key already exists in a parser-built container with `if (object[key])` instead of `if (key in object)`. When the prior value is a falsy primitive — `false`, `0`, `0n`, `0.0`, `-0`, or `""` — the duplicate-key branch is skipped and the value is silently overwritten by a later sub-table, dotted-key sub-table, or array-of-tables sharing the same name. Per the TOML 1.0.0 spec ("Defining a key multiple times is invalid"; "You cannot define any key or table more than once"), this should be a parse error. The result is structural type confusion of attacker-named keys in the value returned by `load()`. A boolean-typed `false` (or numeric `0`) becomes a truthy object. Host applications that gate behavior on `if (config.flag)`, `if (!user.banned)`, `if (config.allowDelete)`, or `if (config.publicMode)` will silently take the truthy branch. This is distinct from GHSA-65fc-cr5f-v7r2 (the 1.0.2 prototype-pollution fix). `Object.prototype` is not polluted. The `Object.create(null)` mitigation from 1.0.2 is intact; the bug here is in the duplicate-key state machine, not in container construction. Version 1.1.2 patches the incorrect comparison.

CWE-697Incorrect Comparison (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weakness
The product compares two entities in a security-relevant context, but the comparison is incorrect.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Double Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Flash Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

Timeline

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-697

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats