<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-09-29T11:42:59.618958+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>info@circl.lu</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/ghsa-xpcf-pg52-r92g</id>
    <title>GHSA-xpcf-pg52-r92g — Hono has incorrect IP matching in ipRestriction() for IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses</title>
    <updated>2026-09-29T11:42:59.621055+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> npm: hono</p>
<p>## Summary</p>
<p>`ipRestriction()` does not canonicalize IPv4-mapped IPv6 client addresses (e.g. `::ffff:127.0.0.1`) before applying IPv4 allow or deny rules. In environments such as Node.js dual-stack, this can cause IPv4 rules to fail to match, leading to unintended authorization behavior.</p>
<p>## Details</p>
<p>The middleware classifies client addresses based on their textual form. Addresses containing "`:`" are treated as IPv6, including IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses such as `::ffff:127.0.0.1`. These addresses are not normalized to IPv4 before matching.</p>
<p>As a result:</p>
<p>* IPv4 static rules (e.g. `127.0.0.1`) do not match because the raw string differs
* IPv4 CIDR rules (e.g. `127.0.0.0/8`, `10.0.0.0/8`) are skipped because the address is treated as IPv6</p>
<p>For example, with:</p>
<p>`denyList: ['127.0.0.1']`</p>
<p>a request from `127.0.0.1` may be represented as `::ffff:127.0.0.1` and bypass the deny rule.</p>
<p>This behavior commonly occurs in Node.js environments where IPv4 clients are exposed as IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses.</p>
<p>## Impact</p>
<p>Applications that rely on IPv4-based `ipRestriction()` rules may incorrectly allow or deny requests.</p>
<p>In affected deployments, a denied IPv4 client may bypass access restrictions. Conversely, legitimate clients may be rejected when using IPv4 allow lists.</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/ghsa-xpcf-pg52-r92g"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
