[MelvinBot]

Details

Bumps transitive dev dependency node-forge 1.3.1 → 1.4.0 (lockfile only) to resolve Dependabot alerts #12, #13, #43, #44, #45.

Usage: Dev-only. react-native → @react-native/dev-middleware → selfsigned → node-forge, used to generate a self-signed cert for the Metro dev server. Not imported by Onyx and not shipped in the published package.

Note: Alert #114 (<= 1.4.0) has no patched release yet. Since node-forge only generates a local dev cert here and never verifies untrusted RSA signatures, it should be dismissed as "Vulnerable code is not actually used".

Change Log

1.4.0

• Security: DoS in BigInteger.modInverse() (CVE-2026-33891)
• Security: RSA-PKCS signature forgery via ASN.1 extra field (CVE-2026-33894)
• Security: Ed25519 signature forgery, missing S < L check (CVE-2026-33895)
• Security: basicConstraints bypass in cert chain verification (CVE-2026-33896)
• Added pseudonym OID; updated bundled jsbn to 1.4

1.3.3

• Fixed: PKCS#12 digestAlgorithm params optional (regression from 1.3.2)

1.3.2

• Security: ASN.1 validator desynchronization (CVE-2025-12816)
• Security: ASN.1 unbounded recursion (CVE-2025-66031)
• Security: ASN.1 OID integer truncation (CVE-2025-66030)

Full changelog

Related Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/695665

Linked E/App PR

N/A — dev-only lockfile change; the published package is unchanged.

Automated Tests

None added; dependency bump only. npm ci and npm run build pass locally; CI covers the rest.

Manual Tests

1. npm ci → npm ls node-forge shows 1.4.0.
2. npm run build, npm run typecheck, npm test pass.
3. node -e "require('selfsigned').generate([{name:'commonName',value:'localhost'}])" returns a cert without errors.

Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Related Issues section above
• I linked the corresponding Expensify/App PR in the ### Linked E/App PR section above, and verified this change against it (E/App CI passed and manual testing completed)
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android / native
  • Android / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • MacOS / Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
  • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-26T13:07:06.856964Z	0110030	PR opened

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[github-actions]

All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅
_{Posted by the CLA Assistant Lite bot.}

[blimpich]

@puneetlath can you get the checks passing?

[puneetlath]

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

[puneetlath]

recheck

[puneetlath]

@blimpich can you review? The checklist requires a linked App PR, but it doesn't make sense in this scenario, since there's no package update that comes with this. It's just a dev dependency update.

I'm comfortable merging with that check failing because of that. Here's a PR where we did similar: #874

[blimpich]

fine by me 👍

[puneetlath]

Merged without checklist check passing for reason described here: #866 (comment)

[os-botify]

🚀 Published to npm in 3.0.132 🎉

[melvin-bot]

@puneetlath looks like this was merged without a test passing. These checks had not passed on 0110030 when it was merged:

• validate-checklist (failure)

Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

[puneetlath]

#866 (comment)