2021-11-01
2092
Godson Obielum
75053
Nov 1, 2021 ⋅ 7 min read

How to protect against regex denial-of-service (ReDoS) attacks

Godson Obielum I'm a software developer with a life goal of using technology as a tool for solving problems across major industries.

Recent posts:

Fix over-caching with dynamic IO caching in Next.js 15

Next.js 15 caching overhaul: Fix overcaching with Dynamic IO and the use cache directive.

David Omotayo
Aug 6, 2025 ⋅ 10 min read
LLMs are facing a QA crisis here’s how we could solve it

LLMs are facing a QA crisis: Here’s how we could solve it

LLM QA isn’t just a tooling gap — it’s a fundamental shift in how we think about software reliability.

Rosario De Chiara
Aug 4, 2025 ⋅ 7 min read

Windsurf vs. Cursor: When to choose the challenger

Windsurf AI brings agentic coding and terminal control right into your IDE. We compare it to Cursor, explore its features, and build a real frontend project.

Chizaram Ken
Jul 31, 2025 ⋅ 9 min read

The CSS if() function: Conditional styling will never be the same

The CSS Working Group has approved the if() function for development, a feature that promises to bring true conditional styling directly to our stylesheets.

Ikeh Akinyemi
Jul 30, 2025 ⋅ 12 min read
View all posts

One Reply to "How to protect against regex denial-of-service (ReDoS) attacks"

  1. Interesting article.

    Your explanation is wrong though. \w+\s* does not return “A long sentence with invalid characters that takes so much time to be matched that it potentially causes our CPU usage to increase”. it matches “A “, because \w is only a single char, so \w+ matches as many word char are available (in this case just the letter A), then \s* matches as many spaces as possible (just one in this case), the result is “A “. then (\w+\s*)* matches the whole string. It matches as many “at least one word char followed by 0 or more space”. The rest of your explanation is therefore erroneous.

    Too bad also your solution is not a real solution. It rejects rapidly the sequence with invalid chars, but it also reject any sequence with valid char ! In fact, this formula will never match anything but the empty string. This is due to the fact that you reference the 1st group from within the first group (the \1 is within the first pair of ()). If you define the first group as “The first group is the first group plus the repetition of itself”, the only solution is the empty group.

    A solution that works to you problem is “an optional blank separated list of words plus one word” and it’s spelled like this :
    /^(\w+\s+)*\w+$/
    which can be decoded as :
    ^: start
    (…)* repeat 0 or more time
    \w+: at least one word char
    \s+: at least one space char :
    \w+: followed by at least one word char
    $: then end

    It instantly matches “correct”
    it instantly matches “this is a list of word”
    it instantly does not match “this is an invalid list!”
    it instantly does not match “A long sentence with invalid characters that takes soo much time to be matched that it potentially causes our CPU usage to increase drastically!!!”

Leave a Reply