Skip to content

Tiptap: Quadratic ReDoS in block and inline Markdown attribute parsing

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Aug 26, 2026 in ueberdosis/tiptap • Updated Sep 8, 2026

Package

npm @tiptap/core (npm)

Affected versions

>= 3.7.0, < 3.30.5

Patched versions

3.30.5

Description

Summary

@tiptap/core contains two quadratic regular-expression denial-of-service paths in its default Markdown attribute parsers. Pandoc-style block attributes use two unanchored greedy expressions that rescan repeated __QUOTED_0 prefixes. Inline shortcode attributes use another unanchored greedy key expression that rescans a long word-character run when no equals sign follows.

The public createAtomBlockMarkdownSpec and createBlockMarkdownSpec helpers call the vulnerable Pandoc-style parser; createInlineMarkdownSpec calls the separately vulnerable shortcode parser. Using unmodified npm 3.29.2, a complete 20,508-byte atom-block token took approximately 1.40 seconds while an equal-length control took 0.29 ms. A complete 32,776-byte inline token took approximately 2.21 seconds while its equal-length control took 0.19 ms. Current repository main commit 5158212970344952dd9918b6a44bfb400d7fb6c1 retains both expressions.

Block attribute root cause

packages/core/src/utilities/markdown/attributeUtils.ts uses both matchAll and replace with /([a-zA-Z][\w-]*)\s*=\s*(__QUOTED_\d+__)/g. The candidate is '__QUOTED_0'.repeat(n) + '__QUOTED_0__'. There are no quotes, so the preceding replacement leaves it unchanged. At each Q, the greedy key-name expression consumes the remaining word-character run, the required equals sign fails, and the unanchored engine restarts at the next Q. This yields O(n^2) work, and the cleanup pass repeats it.

A complete public-API proof is:

import { createAtomBlockMarkdownSpec } from '@tiptap/core'
const tokenizer = createAtomBlockMarkdownSpec({ nodeName: 'probe' }).markdownTokenizer
const attack = '__QUOTED_0'.repeat(2048) + '__QUOTED_0__'
const source = `:::probe {${attack}} :::\n`
const started = performance.now()
tokenizer.tokenize(source, [], {})
console.log(performance.now() - started)

Measured complete-tokenizer timings were 6.23, 23.12, 88.93, 369.10, and 1,400.17 ms at 1,308, 2,588, 5,148, 10,268, and 20,508 bytes. Equal-length controls took 0.07 to 0.29 ms. The directly exported parser took 5,645.71 ms at 40,972 bytes while its control took 0.64 ms.

Inline attribute root cause

packages/core/src/utilities/markdown/createInlineMarkdownSpec.ts uses /(\w+)=(?:"([^"]*)"|'([^']*)')/g. For a long word-character run without an equals sign, \w+ consumes the remaining suffix, = fails, and the unanchored engine restarts at the next character. The default inline tokenizer extracts this attacker string directly from a syntactically complete [shortcode attributes] token.

import { createInlineMarkdownSpec } from '@tiptap/core'
const tokenizer = createInlineMarkdownSpec({ nodeName: 'probe', selfClosing: true }).markdownTokenizer
const source = `[probe ${'0'.repeat(32768)}]`
const started = performance.now()
tokenizer.tokenize(source, [], {})
console.log(performance.now() - started)

At 1,032, 2,056, 4,104, 8,200, 16,392, and 32,776 bytes, candidates took 3.24, 12.88, 54.82, 136.91, 557.83, and 2,209.47 ms. Equal-length hyphen controls took 0.02 to 0.19 ms.

Impact

Applications parsing attacker-controlled Markdown with these helpers can have a browser main thread, server event loop, or worker blocked by a small input. Persisted documents can repeatedly freeze clients; repeated requests can exhaust server-side parsing capacity. Editors that only consume validated ProseMirror JSON and never invoke the Markdown parsing path are not directly affected through document content.

History and remediation

Commit 35645d94ae9cd73448a564104c2e08f64e9564bc introduced both parsers on 14 October 2025, first released in 3.7.0. Versions 3.7.0 through current 3.29.2 and current main remain affected. Official issue, PR, and repository-advisory searches found no duplicate.

Require a start-of-string or whitespace boundary before both key-value parsers, and preferably replace the multi-pass placeholder and shortcode regex designs with deterministic single-pass tokenizers. Keep quoted values out-of-band so attacker input cannot collide with predictable __QUOTED_n__ placeholders. Add complete block and inline Markdown-tokenizer scaling regressions with equal-length controls.

Please credit GitHub user joostgrunwald as finder/reporter.

References

@bdbch bdbch published to ueberdosis/tiptap Aug 26, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Sep 8, 2026
Reviewed Sep 8, 2026
Last updated Sep 8, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource. Learn more on MITRE.

Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity

The product uses a regular expression with an inefficient, possibly exponential worst-case computational complexity that consumes excessive CPU cycles. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-j95f-988m-3j2f

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.