[WIP] Fix node-forge RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification vulnerability

[Copilot]

Thanks for assigning this alert to me. I'm starting to work on it and will keep this PR's description up to date as I form a plan and make progress.

Original prompt

---

This section details the Dependabot vulnerability alert you should resolve

<alert_title>node-forge RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification accepts extra nested DigestAlgorithm elements</alert_title>
<alert_description>node-forge through 1.4.0 fails to validate element count in nested DigestAlgorithm sequences during RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification. Attackers can embed garbage bytes inside the DigestAlgorithm sequence to forge valid signatures for arbitrary messages using low-exponent RSA keys. This is an incomplete fix for CVE-2026-33894.</alert_description>

high
GHSA-86w9-cpqp-85rv, CVE-2026-85393
node-forge
npm
<vulnerable_versions>1.4.0</vulnerable_versions>
<patched_version></patched_version>
<manifest_path>Developer/MarketingTool_Phone/package-lock.json</manifest_path>

https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-85393 https://github.com/digitalbazaar/forge/issues/1149 https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-ppp5-5v6c-4jwp https://github.com/digitalbazaar/forge/blob/v1.4.0/lib/asn1.js https://github.com/digitalbazaar/forge/blob/v1.4.0/lib/rsa.js https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/node-forge-through-1.4.0-rsa-pkcs-1-1.5-signature-forgery-via-nested-digestalgorithm-padding https://github.com/digitalbazaar/forge/pull/1152 https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-86w9-cpqp-85rv

<task_instructions>Resolve this alert by updating the affected package to a non-vulnerable version. Prefer the lowest non-vulnerable version (see the patched_version field above) over the latest to minimize breaking changes. Include a Reachability Assessment section in the PR description. Review the alert_description field to understand which APIs, features, or configurations are affected, then search the codebase for usage of those specific items. If the vulnerable code path is reachable, explain how (which files, APIs, or call sites use the affected functionality) and note that the codebase is actively exposed to this vulnerability. If the vulnerable code path is not reachable, explain why (e.g. the affected API is never called, the vulnerable configuration is not used) and note that the update is primarily to satisfy vulnerability scanners rather than to address an active risk. If the advisory is too vague to determine reachability (e.g. 'improper input validation' with no specific API named), state that reachability could not be determined and explain why. Include a confidence level in the reachability assessment (e.g. high confidence if the advisory names a specific API and you confirmed it is or is not called, low confidence if the usage is indirect and hard to trace). If no patched version is available, check the alert_description field for a Workarounds section — the advisory may describe configuration changes or usage patterns that mitigate the vulnerability without a version update. If a workaround is available, apply it and leave a code comment referencing the advisory identifier explaining it is a temporary mitigation. If neither a patch nor a workaround is available, explain in the PR description why the alert cannot be resolved automatically so a human reviewer can take over. Inspect the repository to determine which package manager is used (e.g. lock files, config files, build scripts) and use that tooling to perform the update — do not edit lock files directly. If the version constraint in the manifest (e.g. package.json, Gemfile, pyproject.toml) caps the version below the fix, update the constraint first. For transitive dependencies, determine whether it is simpler to update the direct dependency that pulls in the vulnerable package or to update the transitive dependency directly, and choose the least disruptive approach. If upgrading to fix the vulnerability forces a major version bump or known breaking changes, review the changelog or release notes, then audit the codebase for usage of affected APIs and fix any breaking changes that are found. If the package manager fails to resolve dependencies (e.g. peer dependency conflicts, incompatible engine constraints), document the error in the PR description rather than attempting increasingly complex workarounds. After updating, check the lock file to confirm the package no longer resolves to a version in the vulnerable range. Keep changes minimal and tightly scoped. Ensure tests, build, type checking, and linting all pass after your changes. If there are any test, lint, or typechecking failures, investigate whether they are caused by the update and fix them if so — do not leave broken tests in the PR. If they were already present before the update, note them in the PR description so a human reviewer can assess whether they are related.</task_instructions>

• Resolves Marketingtool-pro/ai-marketingtool-llc alert #398

[Copilot]

Copilot wasn't able to review any files in this pull request. Check if the Files changed in this pull request are included in default exclusions.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
ai-marketingtool-llc	Error		Oct 2, 2026 8:20am UTC
ai-marketingtoolpro	Error		Oct 2, 2026 8:20am UTC

[Copilot]

Copilot wasn't able to review any files in this pull request. Check if the Files changed in this pull request are included in default exclusions.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud