GHSA-4HXC-9384-M385

The EventStream class in h3 fails to sanitize carriage return (\r) characters in data and comment fields. Per the SSE specification, \r is a valid line terminator, so browsers interpret injected \r as line breaks. This allows an attacker to inject arbitrary SSE events, spoof event types, and split a single push() call into multiple distinct browser-parsed events. This is an incomplete fix bypass of commit 7791538 which addressed \n injection but missed \r-only injection.

Details

The prior fix in commit 7791538 added _sanitizeSingleLine() to strip \n and \r from id and event fields, and changed data formatting to split on \n. However, two code paths remain vulnerable:

1. data field, formatEventStreamMessage() (src/utils/internal/event-stream.ts:190-193)

const data = typeof message.data === "string" ? message.data : "";
for (const line of data.split("\n")) {  // Only splits on \n, not \r
  result += `data: ${line}\n`;
}

String.prototype.split("\n") does not split on \r. A string like "legit\revent: evil" remains as a single "line" and is emitted as:

data: legit\revent: evil\n

Per the SSE specification §9.2.6, \r alone is a valid line terminator. The browser parses this as two separate lines:

data: legit
event: evil

2. comment field, formatEventStreamComment() (src/utils/internal/event-stream.ts:170-177)

export function formatEventStreamComment(comment: string): string {
  return (
    comment
      .split("\n")  // Only splits on \n, not \r
      .map((l) => `: ${l}\n`)
      .join("") + "\n"
  );
}

The same split("\n") pattern means \r in comments is not handled. An input like "x\rdata: injected" produces:

: x\rdata: injected\n\n

Which the browser parses as a comment line followed by actual data:

: x
data: injected

Why _sanitizeSingleLine doesn't help

The _sanitizeSingleLine function at line 198 correctly strips both \r and \n:

function _sanitizeSingleLine(value: string): string {
  return value.replace(/[\n\r]/g, "");
}

But it is only applied to id and event fields (lines 182, 185), not to data or comment.

PoC

Setup

Create a minimal h3 application that reflects user input into an SSE stream:

// server.mjs
import { createApp, createEventStream, defineEventHandler, getQuery } from "h3";

const app = createApp();

app.use("/sse", defineEventHandler(async (event) => {
  const stream = createEventStream(event);
  const { msg } = getQuery(event);

  // Simulates user-controlled input flowing to SSE (common in chat/AI apps)
  await stream.push(String(msg));

  setTimeout(() => stream.close(), 1000);
  return stream.send();
}));

export default app;

Attack 1: Event type injection via \r in data

# Inject an "event: evil" directive via \r in data
curl -N --no-buffer "http://localhost:3000/sse?msg=legit%0Devent:%20evil"

Expected (safe) wire output:

data: legit\revent: evil\n\n

Browser parses as:

data: legit
event: evil

The browser's EventSource fires a custom evil event instead of the default message event, potentially routing data to unintended handlers.

Attack 2: Message boundary injection (event splitting)

# Inject a message boundary (\r\r = empty line) to split one push() into two events
curl -N --no-buffer "http://localhost:3000/sse?msg=first%0D%0Ddata:%20injected"

Browser parses as two separate events:

1. Event 1: data: first
2. Event 2: data: injected

A single push() call produces two distinct events in the browser, the attacker controls the second event's content entirely.

Attack 3: Comment escape to data injection

# Inject via pushComment(), escape from comment into data
curl -N --no-buffer "http://localhost:3000/sse-comment?comment=x%0Ddata:%20injected"

Browser parses as:

: x          (comment, ignored)
data: injected  (real data, dispatched as event)

• Event spoofing: Attacker can inject arbitrary event: types, causing browsers to dispatch events to different EventSource.addEventListener() handlers than intended. In applications that use custom event types for control flow (e.g., error, done, system), this enables UI manipulation.
• Message boundary injection: A single push() call can be split into multiple browser-side events. This breaks application-level framing assumptions, e.g., a chat message could appear as two messages, or an injected "system" message could appear in an AI chat interface.
• Comment-to-data escalation: Data can be injected through what the application considers a harmless comment field via pushComment().
• Bypass of existing security control: The prior fix (commit 7791538) explicitly intended to prevent SSE injection, demonstrating the project considers this a security issue. The incomplete fix creates a false sense of security.

GHSA-4HXC-9384-M385 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 (2.0.1-rc.17, 1.15.9); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Kodem intelligence

Both formatEventStreamMessage and formatEventStreamComment should split on \r, \n, and \r\n, matching the SSE spec's line terminator definition.

// src/utils/internal/event-stream.ts

// Add a shared regex for SSE line terminators
const SSE_LINE_SPLIT = /\r\n|\r|\n/;

export function formatEventStreamComment(comment: string): string {
  return (
    comment
      .split(SSE_LINE_SPLIT)  // was: .split("\n")
      .map((l) => `: ${l}\n`)
      .join("") + "\n"
  );
}

export function formatEventStreamMessage(message: EventStreamMessage): string {
  let result = "";
  if (message.id) {
    result += `id: ${_sanitizeSingleLine(message.id)}\n`;
  }
  if (message.event) {
    result += `event: ${_sanitizeSingleLine(message.event)}\n`;
  }
  if (typeof message.retry === "number" && Number.isInteger(message.retry)) {
    result += `retry: ${message.retry}\n`;
  }
  const data = typeof message.data === "string" ? message.data : "";
  for (const line of data.split(SSE_LINE_SPLIT)) {  // was: data.split("\n")
    result += `data: ${line}\n`;
  }
  result += "\n";
  return result;
}

This ensures all three SSE-spec line terminators (\r\n, \r, \n) are properly handled as line boundaries, preventing \r from being passed through to the browser where it would be interpreted as a line break.

1. What is GHSA-4HXC-9384-M385? GHSA-4HXC-9384-M385 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in h3 (npm), affecting versions >= 2.0.0-beta.0, <= 2.0.1-rc.16. It is fixed in 2.0.1-rc.17, 1.15.9.
2. How severe is GHSA-4HXC-9384-M385? GHSA-4HXC-9384-M385 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 h3 are affected by GHSA-4HXC-9384-M385? h3 (npm) versions >= 2.0.0-beta.0, <= 2.0.1-rc.16 is affected.
4. Is there a fix for GHSA-4HXC-9384-M385? Yes. GHSA-4HXC-9384-M385 is fixed in 2.0.1-rc.17, 1.15.9. Upgrade to this version or later.
5. Is GHSA-4HXC-9384-M385 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-4HXC-9384-M385 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-4HXC-9384-M385 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-4HXC-9384-M385?
   • Upgrade h3 to 2.0.1-rc.17 or later
   • Upgrade h3 to 1.15.9 or later