First off, love svelte, the team is really doing a good job focusing on developer ergonomics.
That said, I’m not surprised to see a list of CVEs impacting devalue. After running into some (seemingly arbitrary) limitations, I skimmed the code and it definitely felt like there was some sketchiness to it, given how it handles user inputs. If I were nefarious or a security researcher it would definitely be a focal point for me.
I want to ask simply for curiosity. Knowing you felt this way about that code, and I'm assuming knew that it had some level of relative importance to Svelte as a whole, how did that inform your decision making, if at all?
My decision making to use svelte? TBH I looked at source only well after I was far enough along development to be committed to it as a framework.
That said, I don’t have any regrets, it’s a pleasure to use svelte and I trust the team’s direction. This particular app is already locked down to internal/trusted users. For something more public or security critical it may warrant a deeper dive and more consideration.
No, if you're using `adapter-static` (or, if not using SvelteKit at all, just not doing any dynamic server-rendering) then you are not affected. But upgrade anyway!
Not from my reading. DoS are irrelevant, remote functions exploits don't apply and from my reading neither does the "XSS via hydratable" since a prerequisite is hydratable() which is a Remote Functions feature.
all DoS attacks and one XSS. this isnt as bad as the react server components CVEs, which enabled RCE.
saving people a click:
CVE-2026-22775: DoS in devalue.parse due to memory/CPU exhaustion
> Effects:
A malicious payload can cause arbitrarily large memory allocation, potentially crashing the process. SvelteKit applications using remote functions are vulnerable, as the parameters are run through devalue.parse
If you don’t have remote functions enabled, SvelteKit is not vulnerable
CVE-2026-22774: DoS in devalue.parse due to memory exhaustion
(Yes, this is very similar to the previous CVE. No, it is not the same!)
> Effects:
A malicious payload can cause arbitrarily large memory allocation, potentially crashing the process
SvelteKit applications using remote functions are vulnerable, as the parameters are run through devalue.parse
If you don’t have remote functions enabled, SvelteKit is not vulnerable
CVE-2026-22803: Memory amplification DoS in Remote Functions binary form deserializer
> Effects:
Users can submit a malicious request that causes your application to hang and allocate arbitrarily-large amounts of memory
CVE-2025-67647: Denial of service and possible SSRF when using prerendering
> Effects:
DoS causes the server process to die
SSRF allows access to internal resources that can be reached without authentication from SvelteKit’s server runtime
If the stars align, it’s possible to obtain SXSS via cache poisoning by forcing a potential CDN to cache an XSS returned by the attacker’s server (the latter being able to specify the cache-control of their choice)
CVE-2025-15265: XSS via hydratable
> Effects:
Your users are vulnerable to XSS if an attacker can manage to get a controlled key into hydratable that is then returned to another user
That said, I’m not surprised to see a list of CVEs impacting devalue. After running into some (seemingly arbitrary) limitations, I skimmed the code and it definitely felt like there was some sketchiness to it, given how it handles user inputs. If I were nefarious or a security researcher it would definitely be a focal point for me.
That said, I don’t have any regrets, it’s a pleasure to use svelte and I trust the team’s direction. This particular app is already locked down to internal/trusted users. For something more public or security critical it may warrant a deeper dive and more consideration.
saving people a click:
CVE-2026-22775: DoS in devalue.parse due to memory/CPU exhaustion
> Effects: A malicious payload can cause arbitrarily large memory allocation, potentially crashing the process. SvelteKit applications using remote functions are vulnerable, as the parameters are run through devalue.parse If you don’t have remote functions enabled, SvelteKit is not vulnerable
CVE-2026-22774: DoS in devalue.parse due to memory exhaustion (Yes, this is very similar to the previous CVE. No, it is not the same!)
> Effects: A malicious payload can cause arbitrarily large memory allocation, potentially crashing the process SvelteKit applications using remote functions are vulnerable, as the parameters are run through devalue.parse If you don’t have remote functions enabled, SvelteKit is not vulnerable
CVE-2026-22803: Memory amplification DoS in Remote Functions binary form deserializer
> Effects: Users can submit a malicious request that causes your application to hang and allocate arbitrarily-large amounts of memory
CVE-2025-67647: Denial of service and possible SSRF when using prerendering
> Effects: DoS causes the server process to die SSRF allows access to internal resources that can be reached without authentication from SvelteKit’s server runtime If the stars align, it’s possible to obtain SXSS via cache poisoning by forcing a potential CDN to cache an XSS returned by the attacker’s server (the latter being able to specify the cache-control of their choice)
CVE-2025-15265: XSS via hydratable
> Effects: Your users are vulnerable to XSS if an attacker can manage to get a controlled key into hydratable that is then returned to another user