CVE-2026-50029

MEDIUMPre-NVD 5.35.3
EchelonGraph scoreLOW confidence

This medium-severity CVE scores 5.3 under the CNA's CVSS (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit-prediction score not yet available (the EPSS model rescores nightly; freshly-published CVEs typically appear within 48 hours). GitHub Security Advisory data not yet ingested — confidence will rise once GHSA publishes (typical lag: hours to days for open-source ecosystem CVEs; never for infrastructure-only CVEs).

Triggered by: NVD CVSS baseline
Sources: cna:github_m
5.3
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorLow exploitation likelihood right now — keep watching.
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS: CVSS: 5.3Exploit: NoneExposed: 0

No vendor fix yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for a patch.

js-toml has silent type confusion via falsy-primitive duplicate-key bypass

Summary

js-toml's 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.

Details

Two truthy checks are wrong:

src/load/interpreter.ts:214Interpreter.tryCreatingObject

if (object[key]) {            // falsy primitives slip through
    // duplicate-key logic
} else {
    object[key] = createSafeObject();   // silently overwrites the prior falsy value
    ...
}

src/load/interpreter.ts:278Interpreter.getOrCreateArray

if (object[first] && !Array.isArray(object[first])) {   // same flaw
    throw new DuplicateKeyError();
}
object[first] = object[first] || [];   // overwrites the prior falsy value

Both should use the in operator. Containers are created via Object.create(null), so in is unambiguous (no inherited keys to worry about).

The bug is reachable through every parent-walking interpreter path:

  • assignValue — dotted keys in key = value
  • createTable[stdTable] headers
  • getOrCreateArray[[arrayOfTables]] headers

PoC

isAdmin = false
[isAdmin]
forced = "yes"

import { load } from 'js-toml';

const config = load( isAdmin = false [isAdmin] forced = "yes" );

console.log(JSON.stringify(config)); // {"isAdmin":{"forced":"yes"}}

console.log(config.isAdmin ? 'BYPASS' : 'safe'); // BYPASS

if (config.isAdmin) { // attacker reaches admin-only code }

Impact

Spec-violating input acceptance leading to structural type confusion. (CWE-697)

Suggested fix

in src/load/interpreter.ts

export class Interpreter extends BaseCstVisitor {
     ignoreImplicitDeclared,
     ignoreExplicitDeclared
   ) {
  • if (object[key]) {
+ if (key in object) { if ( !isPlainObject(object[key]) || (!ignoreExplicitDeclared &&
export class Interpreter extends BaseCstVisitor {
       return this.getOrCreateArray(keys, object[first], idx + 1);
     }
  • if (object[first] && !Array.isArray(object[first])) {
+ if (first in object && !Array.isArray(object[first])) { throw new DuplicateKeyError(); }

object[first] = object[first] || [];

CVSS v3
5.3
EG Score
5.3(low)
EPSS
KEV
Not listed

Published

June 26, 2026

Last Modified

June 26, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-50029(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 7× in last 7d / 11× in last 30d)

Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-07-06 08:50 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-07-05 10:17 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-07-04 11:47 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-07-03 13:15 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-07-02 14:43 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-07-01 16:13 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-06-30 17:43 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-06-29 19:13 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-06-28 20:42 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-06-27 22:11 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-06-26 23:38 UTCEG score recompute

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-50029?
CVE-2026-50029 is a medium vulnerability published on June 26, 2026. js-toml has silent type confusion via falsy-primitive duplicate-key bypass Summary js-toml's 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 "" —…
When was CVE-2026-50029 disclosed?
CVE-2026-50029 was first published in the National Vulnerability Database on June 26, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-50029?
CVE-2026-50029 has a CVSS v4.0 base score of 5.3 (CNA self-assessment; NVD's own analysis pending). The EG score is currently aggregating — additional source signals are being incorporated as they become available..
How do I remediate CVE-2026-50029?
Patch to the fixed version published by the affected vendor. Where vendor advisories exist for CVE-2026-50029, EchelonGraph cross-links them in the Vendor Advisories panel below — those typically contain the canonical remediation steps, fixed version numbers, and any vendor-specific mitigations.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-50029

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-50029?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.