Quick answer
Direct answer
Risk scores
| CVSS metric | What it means |
|---|---|
| Attack vector (AV:N) | Network: reachable remotely |
| Attack complexity (AC:L) | Low complexity |
| Attack requirements (AT:N) | No attack requirements |
| Privileges required (PR:N) | No privileges required |
| User interaction (UI:N) | No user interaction |
| Confidentiality (VC:N) | No confidentiality impact |
| Integrity (VI:N) | No integrity impact |
| Availability (VA:H) | High availability impact |
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/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
About Immutable-Js Immutable
CVE-2026-59880 affects Immutable-Js Immutable, a product from Immutable-Js. Before acting, confirm where Immutable-Js Immutable runs in your estate, who owns it and whether it is reachable from the internet, because exposure decides real risk more than the score alone.
What the flaw is
In plain terms: Immutable.js provides many Persistent Immutable data structures. Prior to 4.3.9 and 5.1.8, Immutable.Map and Immutable.Set keep keys that share the same 32-bit hash in a HashCollisionNode collision bucket that is scanned linearly, allowing an attacker who controls keys inserted into a Map, such as through Immutable.Map(obj), Immutable.fromJS(obj), state.merge(userObject), or mergeDeep, to craft many colliding keys and degrade insertion and lookup to consume disproportionate CPU. This issue is fixed in versions 4.3.9 and 5.1.8.
Based on its CVSS vector, the flaw can be reached over the network, needs no login, and needs no user interaction. Apply the vendor fix and confirm exposure on internet facing and business critical assets first.
Affected versions and timeline
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Product | Immutable-Js Immutable |
| Affected versions | Immutable before 4.3.9; Immutable from 5.0.0 before 5.1.8 |
| Published | Jul 8, 2026 |
| Last modified | Jul 10, 2026 |
| Added to CISA KEV | Not listed |
| Assigning CNA | security-advisories@github.com |
How to detect it
- Inventory every instance of Immutable-Js Immutable and record the running version against the affected range above.
- Check external attack surface scans for internet facing instances of the component.
- Review logs on affected systems for unusual requests, errors or new processes around the vulnerable function.
- Confirm with an authenticated vulnerability scan once your scanner has a check for this CVE.
How to fix it
- Apply the fixed version of Immutable-Js Immutable named in the vendor advisory.
- If patching must wait, restrict network access to the affected service and put it behind authentication or a web application firewall rule.
- Rescan after the change to prove the exposure is gone, then close the ticket.
CTEM action plan
| CTEM stage | What to do for this CVE |
|---|---|
| Scope | Add every business service that depends on Immutable-Js Immutable to the current CTEM cycle. |
| Discover | Find all instances, including shadow and cloud deployments, and record versions and exposure. |
| Prioritize | Rank using EPSS and CVSS together with asset exposure and business impact. |
| Validate | Confirm the flaw is reachable and exploitable in your environment and that compensating controls work. |
| Mobilize | Assign the fix to the asset owner with a due date matched to the priority, then verify closure. |
CWE References
Technical References
Frequently asked questions
Related CVEs
Immutable.js provides many Persistent Immutable data structures. Prior to 4.3.9 and 5.1.8, List#set, List#setSize, List#setIn, List#updateIn, and the functional set, setIn, and updateIn mishandle an index or size in the range 2 ** 30 to 2 ** 31 in setListBounds in src/List.js, causing an empty List to enter an uncatchable infinite loop, a populated List to allocate without bound until process abort, or setSize to silently wrap large values. This issue is fixed in versions 4.3.9 and 5.1.8.
Immutable.js provides many Persistent Immutable data structures. Prior to versions 3.8.3, 4.3.7, and 5.1.5, Prototype Pollution is possible in immutable via the mergeDeep(), mergeDeepWith(), merge(), Map.toJS(), and Map.toObject() APIs. This issue has been patched in versions 3.8.3, 4.3.7, and 5.1.5.
Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to 4.1.137.Final and 4.2.17.Final, the default io.netty.handler.ssl.SniHandler constructors use the pre-handshake ClientHello aggregation path in handler/src/main/java/io/netty/handler/ssl/SslClientHelloHandler.java at io.netty.handler.ssl.SslClientHelloHandler#decode, where handshakeBuffer.clear() and writeBytes() recopy all previously received body bytes for every additional TLS record. An unauthenticated remote peer can advertise a large ClientHello and deliver its body in thousands of tiny records, causing quadratic CPU work on the event loop before the TLS handshake completes and degrading TLS handling for other clients. This issue is fixed in versions 4.1.137.Final and 4.2.17.Final.
Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity vulnerability in absinthe-graphql absinthe allows unauthenticated denial of service via quadratic fragment-name uniqueness validation. 'Elixir.Absinthe.Phase.Document.Validation.UniqueFragmentNames':run/2 iterates over all fragments and for each one calls duplicate?/2, which evaluates Enum.count(fragments, &(&1.name == name)) — a full linear scan of the fragment list. The result is O(N²) comparisons per document, where N is the number of fragment definitions supplied by the caller. Because input.fragments is built directly from the GraphQL query body, N is fully attacker-controlled. A minimum-size fragment definition is roughly 16 bytes, so a ~1 MB document carries ~60,000 fragments and forces ~3.6 × 10⁹ comparisons inside this single validation phase. No authentication, schema knowledge, or special configuration is required. This issue affects absinthe: from 1.2.0 before 1.10.2.
React Router is a router for React. In versions 7.0.0 through 7.17.0, the manifest endpoint could be accessed via unauthenticated targeted requests that would put heavy load on the server and slow down response times. This issue is a follow up to CVE-2026-42342, and does not does not impact React Router applications using Declarative Mode (<BrowserRouter>) or Data Mode (createBrowserRouter/<RouterProvider>). This issue has been fixed in version 7.18.0.
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, Quadratic-time escaping when stringifying X.500 distinguished names. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bc-fips 1.0.2.7 (1.0.X series), 2.0.2 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.3 (2.1.X series).
Earn your free CTEM certification.
Learn to scope, prioritize, validate and mobilize fixes for CVEs like CVE-2026-59880 with a free CTEM certification.
Beginner / Practitioner / Program Leader
Explore certifications