VulnerabilityPublished 3 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-69185: socketio socket.io · Improper Input Validation

Affects socketio socket.ioSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 4.2.7 : patch socketio socket.io soon.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 11:03 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 50% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.2.7, 3.4.5, 3.3.6

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 3 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 1 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 socket.io and socket.io/socket.io to 4.2.7, 3.4.5 or 3.3.6.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
socketiosocket.io	Affected >=4.0.0 <4.2.7	Fixed in 4.2.7
socketiosocket.io	Affected >=3.4.0 <3.4.5	Fixed in 3.4.5
socketiosocket.io	Affected <3.3.6	Fixed in 3.3.6
npmsocket.io/socket.io`pkg:npm/socket.io/socket.io`Other threats	Affected <4.2.7 <3.4.5 <3.3.6	Fixed in 4.2.7 3.4.5 3.3.6

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

AI-suggested

Upgrading to socket.io versions 4.2.7, 3.4.5, or 3.3.6 or later fully mitigates this vulnerability. Patch status is confirmed by the version fixes stated in the advisory. No additional vendor advisory content is provided, so check official socket.io release notes for confirmation.

Description

Socket.IO enables bidirectional and low-latency communication for every platform. Prior to 4.2.7, 3.4.5, and 3.3.6, a specially crafted Socket.IO packet can make the server wait for a large number of binary attachments and buffer them, which can be exploited to make the server run out of memory. This vulnerability is fixed in 4.2.7, 3.4.5, and 3.3.6.

Impact

The vulnerability can cause a denial of service by exhausting server memory due to buffering many binary attachments from a crafted packet. There is no impact on confidentiality or integrity, only availability is affected. No known exploits in the wild have been reported.

Summary

Socket.IO versions before 4.2.7, 3.4.5, and 3.3.6 contain an improper input validation vulnerability (CWE-20) where a specially crafted packet can cause the server to wait for and buffer an excessive number of binary attachments. This can exhaust server memory resources, leading to denial of service (availability impact). The vulnerability is tracked as CVE-2026-69185 and has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H). The issue is fixed in versions 4.2.7, 3.4.5, and 3.3.6.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-754Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is expected.
Implementation
If using exception handling, catch and throw specific exceptions instead of overly-general exceptions (CWE-396, CWE-397). Catch and handle exceptions as locally as possible so that exceptions do not propagate too far up the call stack (CWE-705). Avoid unchecked or uncaught exceptions where feasible (CWE-248).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Aug 2026, 20:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20, CWE-754

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats