GHSA-224P-V68G-5G8F

A query depth restriction using the max-depth can be bypassed if ignoreIntrospection is enabled (which is the default configuration) by naming your query/fragment __schema.

Details

In the countDepth function, we have the following code that calculates the depth of a used fragment:

    } else if (node.kind == Kind.FRAGMENT_SPREAD) {
      if (this.visitedFragments.has(node.name.value)) {
        return this.visitedFragments.get(node.name.value) ?? 0;
      } else {
        this.visitedFragments.set(node.name.value, -1);
      }
      const fragment = this.context.getFragment(node.name.value);
      if (fragment) {
        let fragmentDepth;
        if (this.config.flattenFragments) {
          fragmentDepth = this.countDepth(fragment, parentDepth);
        } else {
          fragmentDepth = this.countDepth(fragment, parentDepth + 1);
        }
        depth = Math.max(depth, fragmentDepth);
        if (this.visitedFragments.get(node.name.value) === -1) {
          this.visitedFragments.set(node.name.value, fragmentDepth);
        }
      }
    }

which will calculate the depth of the fragment used in the current node, store the value in this.visitedFragments and re-use it in the future to avoid re-calculating the depth for the same fragment.

The issue arises when the same fragment is used multiple times, at different depths. The current caching takes into account the depth of the first occurrence, which means if the fragment is re-used later in a higher depth, this cached value is not updated.

So, for example, sending the following query with a max depth of 6:

query {
  books {
    author {
      ...Test
    }
  }
  books {
    author {
      books {
        author {
          ...Test
        }
      }
    }
  }
}
fragment Test on Author {
  books {
    title
  }
}

The first use of Test fragment does not exceed the defined limit, and this depth will be cached.

In the second use, the fragment is reused in a greater depth, but the countDepth function will still use the depth cached, without accounting for the increased depth.

PoC

Max depth: 6

query {
  books {
    author {
      ...Test
    }
  }
  books {
    author {
      books {
        author {
          ...Test
        }
      }
    }
  }
}
fragment Test on Author {
  books {
    title
  }
}

This issue affects applications using the GraphQL Armor Depth Limit plugin.

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

GHSA-224P-V68G-5G8F 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 (2.4.2); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Kodem intelligence

This is fixed in PR#824. We now store only the additional depth contributed by the fragment and add it to the parent depth where the fragment is used (parentDepth).

1. What is GHSA-224P-V68G-5G8F? GHSA-224P-V68G-5G8F is a medium-severity uncontrolled resource consumption vulnerability in @escape.tech/graphql-armor-max-depth (npm), affecting versions <= 2.4.1. It is fixed in 2.4.2. Crafted input forces the application to consume excessive CPU, memory, or other resources, degrading or denying service.
2. How severe is GHSA-224P-V68G-5G8F? GHSA-224P-V68G-5G8F 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 @escape.tech/graphql-armor-max-depth are affected by GHSA-224P-V68G-5G8F? @escape.tech/graphql-armor-max-depth (npm) versions <= 2.4.1 is affected.
4. Is there a fix for GHSA-224P-V68G-5G8F? Yes. GHSA-224P-V68G-5G8F is fixed in 2.4.2. Upgrade to this version or later.
5. Is GHSA-224P-V68G-5G8F exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-224P-V68G-5G8F 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 GHSA-224P-V68G-5G8F 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 GHSA-224P-V68G-5G8F? Upgrade @escape.tech/graphql-armor-max-depth to 2.4.2 or later.