CVE-2026-87018
Nodejs Undici 4.2.1 – 6.29.1
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-87018 is a high-severity Uncaught Exception (CWE-248) vulnerability in Nodejs Undici. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 8th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-102318
Vulnerability Data
undici is an HTTP client library for Node.js. In versions 4.2.1 through 6.29.0, 7.0.0 through 7.30.0, and 8.0.0 through 8.12.1, the client process crashes when a TLS 1.2 server renegotiates after the connection is established and presents a different, CA-trusted…
more
certificate whose hostname does not match the requested host. Node.js re-runs hostname verification on the renegotiated handshake and destroys the socket with a certificate-altname error, but undici's established-socket error handler asserted that this error code could never occur, so the peer-controlled error became an uncaught assertion that terminates the Node.js process, affecting both the HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2 paths. A malicious or compromised HTTPS endpoint reached through undici or the global fetch() can crash the client with a single server-initiated renegotiation, taking down all in-flight requests and background work in the process, and exploitation needs no CA compromise because the attacker controls the endpoint and can present two ordinary valid certificates. Only TLS 1.2 is affected, since TLS 1.3 does not support renegotiation. The issue is fixed in undici 6.29.1, 7.30.1, and 8.12.2, and users should upgrade to one of those versions or later. As a workaround, restrict outbound connections to TLS 1.3 so renegotiation cannot occur, when the target endpoints support it.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds reachable assertions during development.
Security engineering principles include robust exception management to keep the system in a defined state.
Fail-in-known-state reduces the impact when an uncaught exception occurs by preserving a safe condition.
Validating untrusted inputs structurally prevents attacker data from reaching and triggering assertions.
Error handling requirements force structured catching and response to exceptions instead of allowing them to propagate uncaught.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices explicitly require structured exception handling to prevent uncaught exceptions from reaching production.
Runtime monitoring of software can detect assertion-triggered crashes as adverse events.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record reachable-assertion flaws before deployment.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect uncaught exceptions before production deployment.
Secure coding standards directly require catching and handling exceptions to prevent crashes or leaks.