CVE-2026-101913

### Summary `Address6.isLinkLocal()` recognizes `fe80::/64` rather than `fe80::/10`. Link-local unicast is the whole `/10` under RFC 4291 §2.4 and the IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry, so the method returns `false` for every link-local address outside the one `/64` that stateless address autoconfiguration happens to use. `new Address6('fe81::1').isLinkLocal()` is `false`. The library contradicts itself on the same object: for `fe81::1`, `getType()` returns `'Link-local unicast'`, `getScope()` returns `'Link local'`, and `isHostInSubnet(new Address6('fe80::/10'))` returns `true`, while `isLinkLocal()` returns `false`. An application that builds a network trust-boundary decision on these checks (for example a filter intended to block Server-Side Request Forgery, or SSRF) will classify a link-local target as unremarkable and allow the request. SSRF is an attack in which a user-supplied address coaxes the server into making a request to an internal destination the user could not otherwise reach. ### Details `isLinkLocal()` in `src/ipv6.ts` compares the first 64 bits of the address against a literal string: ```ts // Zeroes are required, i.e. we can't check isHostInSubnet with 'fe80::/10' if ( this.getBitsBase2(0, 64) === '1111111010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000' ) { return true; } ``` The comparison requires the first 64 bits to be exactly `fe80:0000:0000:0000`, so it accepts 2⁶⁴ of the 2¹¹⁸ addresses in `fe80::/10`. The comment states a premise the library disproves: `getType()` classifies the same range with `isHostInSubnet` against the `'fe80::/10': 'Link-local unicast'` entry in `src/v6/constants.ts`, and `Address4.isLinkLocal()` is a plain `isHostInSubnet` test against `169.254.0.0/16`. RFC 4291 §2.5.6 constrains the format of an autoconfigured link-local address; it does not define the range, and reading it as the definition is the likeliest origin of the `/64` comparison. The IPv4-mapped and NAT64 well-known paths of `isLinkLocal()` are unaffected: `::ffff:169.254.169.254` and `64:ff9b::a9fe:a9fe` are classified by their embedded IPv4 address and report `true`. ### Affected versions `<= 10.5.0`. The comparison has had this shape since `Address6.isLinkLocal()` was introduced, so every release exposing the method is affected. ### Impact Every well-formed address in `fe80::/10` outside `fe80::/64` is parsed successfully, `isValid()` is `true`, and the classifier reports something untrue about it. No other classifier catches these addresses: `isPrivate()` covers ULA (`fc00::/7`), not link-local. | Address | `isLinkLocal()` | `getType()` | `getScope()` | |---|---|---|---| | `fe80::1` | `true` | Link-local unicast | Link local | | `fe81::1` | `false` | Link-local unicast | Link local | | `fe8f::1` | `false` | Link-local unicast | Link local | | `febf::1` | `false` | Link-local unicast | Link local | | `fe80:0:0:1::1` | `false` | Link-local unicast | Link local | | `fe80::1:0:0:0:1` | `false` | Link-local unicast | Link local | Python's `ipaddress` module, the `IN6_IS_ADDR_LINKLOCAL` macro in `netinet6/in6.h`, and Linux's `ipv6_addr_type()` all apply a ten-bit prefix test and classify every row above as link-local. A request admitted through a guard built on `isLinkLocal()` reaches a link-local host on the server's own segment: a neighboring machine or the on-link router. An IPv6 link-local destination generally needs a zone index and a neighbor on the same link, so the reach is the server's own segment rather than the internet or a universal metadata endpoint, and the severity reflects that. ### Proof of concept `npm i ip-address@10.5.0`, then: ```js const { Address6 } = require('ip-address'); // A guard of the shape the library documents. function isBlocked(host) { const a = new Address6(host); return a.isLoopback() || a.isLinkLocal() || a.isPrivate() || a.isMulticast() || a.isUnspecified(); } for (const h of ['fe80::1', 'fe81::1', 'febf::1', 'fe80:0:0:1::1']) { const a = new Address6(h); console.log(isBlocked(h) ? 'BLOCK' : 'ALLOW', h, '-> getType()', a.getType()); } ``` On affected versions: ``` BLOCK fe80::1 -> getType() Link-local unicast ALLOW fe81::1 -> getType() Link-local unicast ALLOW febf::1 -> getType() Link-local unicast ALLOW fe80:0:0:1::1 -> getType() Link-local unicast ``` ### Remediation Upgrade to the patched release. In the fix, `isLinkLocal()` tests the address against `fe80::/10` with the same `isHostInSubnet` predicate `getType()` and `Address4.isLinkLocal()` use. The same release adds `2001::/32` to the type table so `getType()` reports `'Teredo'` for the addresses `isTeredo()` returns `true` for; that is a consistency correction with no security effect. If you cannot upgrade immediately, test the range directly: ```js const LINK_LOCAL = new Address6('fe80::/10'); const linkLocal = new Address6(host).isHostInSubnet(LINK_LOCAL); ``` ### A note on SSRF defense These methods are address classifiers, not a complete SSRF defense. Regardless of this fix, a robust SSRF guard must resolve the hostname and validate the *resolved* IP against the socket it connects to, and account for DNS rebinding and redirects. Treat these checks as one layer, not the only one.