Vulnerability Database

383,304

Total vulnerabilities in the database

league/commonmark: Denial of service via duplicate footnote definitions — league / commonmark

Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity

Impact

The Footnote extension records one backref per footnote reference and then appends the entire backref list for every footnote definition block in the document, without ever de-duplicating or removing repeated definitions of the same label (GatherFootnotesListener, populated by NumberFootnotesListener). A document that references a single label N times and also supplies N duplicate [^a]: definitions of that label therefore produces N × N FootnoteBackref nodes, so output size, parse time, and peak memory are all O(N²).

Reaching the vulnerable path requires FootnoteExtension to be registered on the Environment. This is opt-in, but is a commonly enabled GFM-style feature; no other non-default configuration is required. An unauthenticated attacker can expand a ~10 KB request into a ~62 MB HTML response, ~3 s of CPU, and ~440 MB of peak memory — enough to OOM-kill a default 128 MB PHP worker and deny service. Availability impact only; no confidentiality or integrity effect. The Footnote extension was introduced in 1.5.0 (May 2020) with this backref logic present from the first commit, so all releases from 1.5.0 onward (including every 2.x through 2.8.x) are affected.

Workarounds

There is no library-level option to cap the number of footnotes, references, or definitions, so no configuration switch prevents the amplification. Integrators who cannot upgrade should:

  • Disable the Footnote extension for untrusted input, or
  • Enforce a strict input-size limit before conversion — but note this is a weak control here, since the ~10 KB payload that already triggers the 62 MB / ~440 MB blowup is well within typical request-body limits, so any cap must be aggressively small to help.

Upgrading to the patched release is the recommended remediation.

  • Published: Aug 6, 2026
  • Updated: Aug 7, 2026
  • GHSA: GHSA-jfm3-95jq-q3rf
  • Severity: High
  • Exploit:
  • CISA KEV:

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: High
  • Score: 7.5
  • AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

CWEs:

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.