Skip to content
Connect AISign inSign up free
CVE-2026-500295.3MediumCWE-697

CVE-2026-50029: js-toml has silent type confusion via falsy-primitive duplicate-key bypass

sunnyadn · js-toml

Affected: sunnyadn js-toml · Exploitation: unlikely (under 1%)

Not in CyberSIXT coverage yet: no article names this CVE. This page shows the public record.

0.4%probability of exploitation in the next 30 days
34th percentile
050100

Higher than 34% of scored CVEs

5.3MediumCVSS 3.1
LowMedium

DescriptionCVE.org

js-toml is a TOML parser for JavaScript, Prior to version 1.1.2, the interpreter checks whether a key already exists in a parser-built container with `if (object[key])` instead of `if (key in object)`. When the prior value is a falsy primitive — `false`, `0`, `0n`, `0.0`, `-0`, or `""` — the duplicate-key branch is skipped and the value is silently overwritten by a later sub-table, dotted-key sub-table, or array-of-tables sharing the same name. Per the TOML 1.0.0 spec ("Defining a key multiple times is invalid"; "You cannot define any key or table more than once"), this should be a parse error. The result is structural type confusion of attacker-named keys in the value returned by `load()`. A boolean-typed `false` (or numeric `0`) becomes a truthy object. Host applications that gate behavior on `if (config.flag)`, `if (!user.banned)`, `if (config.allowDelete)`, or `if (config.publicMode)` will silently take the truthy branch. This is distinct from GHSA-65fc-cr5f-v7r2 (the 1.0.2 prototype-pollution fix). `Object.prototype` is not polluted. The `Object.create(null)` mitigation from 1.0.2 is intact; the bug here is in the duplicate-key state machine, not in container construction. Version 1.1.2 patches the incorrect comparison.

Affected products1

From the CVE record. A product or version that is not listed is unknown, not unaffected.

  • sunnyadn · js-toml< 1.1.2

On the Atlas

Every published CVE is on the CyberSIXT Atlas, grouped by weakness, vendor and month.

Open the Atlas
Exploitation
Unlikely (under 1%). EPSS under 1%, or no score yet.
CISA KEV
Not listed
Public check
No public nuclei template
Published
August 2026

CoverageNo articles yet

No CyberSIXT article names CVE-2026-50029 yet, so there is no coverage timeline, action brief or change log for it. Everything on this page comes from the public CVE record, CISA KEV, EPSS and the nuclei template index. Search the archive or see the CVEs in the news.

References