CWE-770
AllowedAllocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Abstraction: Base · Status: Incomplete
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
3032 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-3MJG-24Q2-WGH5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-08 18:30 – Updated: 2025-12-08 21:30In InputMethodInfo of InputMethodInfo.java, there is a possible permanent denial of service due to resource exhaustion. This could lead to local denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-48603"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-08T17:16:17Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In InputMethodInfo of InputMethodInfo.java, there is a possible permanent denial of service due to resource exhaustion. This could lead to local denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.",
"id": "GHSA-3mjg-24q2-wgh5",
"modified": "2025-12-08T21:30:21Z",
"published": "2025-12-08T18:30:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-48603"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/b4c6786312a217ad9dfd97041b2f1e2f77e39b94"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2025-12-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3MM4-W7V6-4RHV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-01-20 00:01 – Updated: 2025-01-13 15:22decoding.c in android-gif-drawable before 1.2.24 does not limit the maximum length of a comment, leading to denial of service.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "pl.droidsonroids.gif:android-gif-drawable"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.2.24"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-23435"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-01-13T15:22:57Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-01-19T01:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "decoding.c in android-gif-drawable before 1.2.24 does not limit the maximum length of a comment, leading to denial of service.",
"id": "GHSA-3mm4-w7v6-4rhv",
"modified": "2025-01-13T15:22:57Z",
"published": "2022-01-20T00:01:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-23435"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/koral--/android-gif-drawable/issues/792#issuecomment-1048850678"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/koral--/android-gif-drawable/commit/9f0f0c89e6fa38548163771feeb4bde84b828887"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/koral--/android-gif-drawable"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/koral--/android-gif-drawable/compare/v1.2.23...v1.2.24"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "android-gif-drawable vulerable to denial of service due to unrestricted comment length"
}
GHSA-3MWP-WVH9-7528
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-03 15:35 – Updated: 2026-07-17 16:18Summary
A Denial of Service vulnerability exists in the vLLM OpenAI-compatible API server. Due to the lack of an upper bound validation on the n parameter in the ChatCompletionRequest and CompletionRequest Pydantic models, an unauthenticated attacker can send a single HTTP request with an astronomically large n value. This completely blocks the Python asyncio event loop and causes immediate Out-Of-Memory crashes by allocating millions of request object copies in the heap before the request even reaches the scheduling queue.
Details
The root cause of this vulnerability lies in the missing upper bound checks across the request parsing and asynchronous scheduling layers:
- Protocol Layer:
In
vllm/entrypoints/openai/chat_completion/protocol.py, thenparameter is defined simply as an integer without anypydantic.Fieldconstraints for an upper bound.
class ChatCompletionRequest(OpenAIBaseModel):
# Ordered by official OpenAI API documentation
# https://platform.openai.com/docs/api/reference/chat/create
messages: list[ChatCompletionMessageParam]
model: str | None = None
frequency_penalty: float | None = 0.0
logit_bias: dict[str, float] | None = None
logprobs: bool | None = False
top_logprobs: int | None = 0
max_tokens: int | None = Field(
default=None,
deprecated="max_tokens is deprecated in favor of "
"the max_completion_tokens field",
)
max_completion_tokens: int | None = None
n: int | None = 1
presence_penalty: float | None = 0.0
- SamplingParams Layer (Incomplete Validation):
When the API request is converted to internal
SamplingParamsinvllm/sampling_params.py, the_verify_argsmethod only checks the lower bound (self.n < 1), entirely omitting an upper bounds check.
def _verify_args(self) -> None:
if not isinstance(self.n, int):
raise ValueError(f"n must be an int, but is of type {type(self.n)}")
if self.n < 1:
raise ValueError(f"n must be at least 1, got {self.n}.")
- Engine Layer (The OOM Trigger):
When the malicious request reaches the core engine (
vllm/v1/engine/async_llm.py), the engine attempts to fan out the requestntimes to generate identical independent sequences within a synchronous loop.
# Fan out child requests (for n>1).
parent_request = ParentRequest(request)
for idx in range(parent_params.n):
request_id, child_params = parent_request.get_child_info(idx)
child_request = request if idx == parent_params.n - 1 else copy(request)
child_request.request_id = request_id
child_request.sampling_params = child_params
await self._add_request(
child_request, prompt_text, parent_request, idx, queue
)
return queue
Because Python's asyncio runs on a single thread and event loop, this monolithic for-loop monopolizes the CPU thread. The server stops responding to all other connections (including liveness probes). Simultaneously, the memory allocator is overwhelmed by cloning millions of request object instances via copy(request), driving the host's Resident Set Size (RSS) up by gigabytes per second until the OS OOM-killer terminates the vLLM process.
Impact
Vulnerability Type: Resource Exhaustion / Denial of Service
Impacted Parties:
- Any individual or organization hosting a public-facing vLLM API server (vllm.entrypoints.openai.api_server), which happens to be the primary entrypoint for OpenAI-compatible setups.
- SaaS / AI-as-a-Service platforms acting as reverse proxies sitting in front of vLLM without strict HTTP body payload validation or rate limitations.
Because this vulnerability exploits the control plane rather than the data plane, an unauthenticated remote attacker can achieve a high success rate in taking down production inference hosts with a single HTTP request. This effectively circumvents any hardware-level capacity planning and conventional bandwidth stress limitations.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "vllm"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.19.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34756"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-03T15:35:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-06T16:16:36Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\nA Denial of Service vulnerability exists in the vLLM OpenAI-compatible API server. Due to the lack of an upper bound validation on the `n` parameter in the `ChatCompletionRequest` and `CompletionRequest` Pydantic models, an unauthenticated attacker can send a single HTTP request with an astronomically large `n` value. This completely blocks the Python `asyncio` event loop and causes immediate Out-Of-Memory crashes by allocating millions of request object copies in the heap before the request even reaches the scheduling queue.\n\n### Details\nThe root cause of this vulnerability lies in the missing upper bound checks across the request parsing and asynchronous scheduling layers:\n\n1. **Protocol Layer:**\n In `vllm/entrypoints/openai/chat_completion/protocol.py`, the `n` parameter is defined simply as an integer without any `pydantic.Field` constraints for an upper bound.\n```python\nclass ChatCompletionRequest(OpenAIBaseModel):\n # Ordered by official OpenAI API documentation\n # https://platform.openai.com/docs/api/reference/chat/create\n messages: list[ChatCompletionMessageParam]\n model: str | None = None\n frequency_penalty: float | None = 0.0\n logit_bias: dict[str, float] | None = None\n logprobs: bool | None = False\n top_logprobs: int | None = 0\n max_tokens: int | None = Field(\n default=None,\n deprecated=\"max_tokens is deprecated in favor of \"\n \"the max_completion_tokens field\",\n )\n max_completion_tokens: int | None = None\n n: int | None = 1\n presence_penalty: float | None = 0.0\n```\n\n1. **SamplingParams Layer (Incomplete Validation):**\n When the API request is converted to internal `SamplingParams` in `vllm/sampling_params.py`, the `_verify_args` method only checks the lower bound (`self.n \u003c 1`), entirely omitting an upper bounds check.\n```python\n def _verify_args(self) -\u003e None:\n if not isinstance(self.n, int):\n raise ValueError(f\"n must be an int, but is of type {type(self.n)}\")\n if self.n \u003c 1:\n raise ValueError(f\"n must be at least 1, got {self.n}.\")\n```\n\n1. **Engine Layer (The OOM Trigger):**\n When the malicious request reaches the core engine (`vllm/v1/engine/async_llm.py`), the engine attempts to fan out the request `n` times to generate identical independent sequences within a synchronous loop.\n```python\n # Fan out child requests (for n\u003e1).\n parent_request = ParentRequest(request)\n for idx in range(parent_params.n):\n request_id, child_params = parent_request.get_child_info(idx)\n child_request = request if idx == parent_params.n - 1 else copy(request)\n child_request.request_id = request_id\n child_request.sampling_params = child_params\n await self._add_request(\n child_request, prompt_text, parent_request, idx, queue\n )\n return queue\n```\n Because Python\u0027s `asyncio` runs on a single thread and event loop, this monolithic `for`-loop monopolizes the CPU thread. The server stops responding to all other connections (including liveness probes). Simultaneously, the memory allocator is overwhelmed by cloning millions of request object instances via `copy(request)`, driving the host\u0027s Resident Set Size (RSS) up by gigabytes per second until the OS `OOM-killer` terminates the vLLM process.\n\n### Impact\n**Vulnerability Type:** Resource Exhaustion / Denial of Service\n\n**Impacted Parties:**\n- Any individual or organization hosting a public-facing vLLM API server (`vllm.entrypoints.openai.api_server`), which happens to be the primary entrypoint for OpenAI-compatible setups.\n- SaaS / AI-as-a-Service platforms acting as reverse proxies sitting in front of vLLM without strict HTTP body payload validation or rate limitations.\n\nBecause this vulnerability exploits the control plane rather than the data plane, an unauthenticated remote attacker can achieve a high success rate in taking down production inference hosts with a single HTTP request. This effectively circumvents any hardware-level capacity planning and conventional bandwidth stress limitations.",
"id": "GHSA-3mwp-wvh9-7528",
"modified": "2026-07-17T16:18:45Z",
"published": "2026-04-03T15:35:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/security/advisories/GHSA-3mwp-wvh9-7528"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34756"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/37952"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/commit/b111f8a61f100fdca08706f41f29ef3548de7380"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36005"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36006"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-34756"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2455425"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/vllm/PYSEC-2026-2298.yaml"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-34756.json"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "vLLM: Unauthenticated OOM Denial of Service via Unbounded `n` Parameter in OpenAI API Server"
}
GHSA-3P2X-HFRR-WJ4W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-24 15:30 – Updated: 2025-04-24 15:30Denial of service due to allocation of resources without limits. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Protect Cloud Agent (Windows) before build 39904.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-30409"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-24T14:15:58Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Denial of service due to allocation of resources without limits. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Protect Cloud Agent (Windows) before build 39904.",
"id": "GHSA-3p2x-hfrr-wj4w",
"modified": "2025-04-24T15:30:49Z",
"published": "2025-04-24T15:30:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-30409"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security-advisory.acronis.com/advisories/SEC-8148"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3P32-8VQ4-QVPH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-03 21:31 – Updated: 2025-02-21 06:31An issue in aedes v0.51.2 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service(DoS) via a crafted request.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-48080"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-03T19:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue in aedes v0.51.2 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service(DoS) via a crafted request.",
"id": "GHSA-3p32-8vq4-qvph",
"modified": "2025-02-21T06:31:08Z",
"published": "2024-12-03T21:31:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-48080"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moscajs/aedes/issues/1024"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moscajs/aedes/issues/1024#issuecomment-2671695219"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/mcollina/f06af2098665e4bb8372104425f3999e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/pengwGit/cd3c1701a9e05b424fa6c60d86845de4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moscajs/aedes/releases/tag/v0.51.2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3PCQ-34W5-P4G2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-10-21 17:49 – Updated: 2022-08-15 20:14Impact
This is a bug affecting two of the functions in this library: forEachSeries and forEachLimit. They should limit the concurrency of some actions but, in practice, they don't. Any code calling these functions will be written thinking they would limit the concurrency but they won't. This could lead to potential security issues in other projects.
Patches
The problem has been patched in 1.0.4.
Workarounds
There is no workaround aside from upgrading to 1.0.4.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "modern-async"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.0.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-41167"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-10-20T17:39:03Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-10-20T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nThis is a bug affecting two of the functions in this library: `forEachSeries` and `forEachLimit`. They should limit the concurrency of some actions but, in practice, they don\u0027t. Any code calling these functions will be written thinking they would limit the concurrency but they won\u0027t. This could lead to potential security issues in other projects.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe problem has been patched in 1.0.4.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nThere is no workaround aside from upgrading to 1.0.4.\n",
"id": "GHSA-3pcq-34w5-p4g2",
"modified": "2022-08-15T20:14:42Z",
"published": "2021-10-21T17:49:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nicolas-van/modern-async/security/advisories/GHSA-3pcq-34w5-p4g2"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-41167"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nicolas-van/modern-async/issues/5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nicolas-van/modern-async/commit/0010d28de1b15d51db3976080e26357fa7144436"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/nicolas-van/modern-async"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "modern-async\u0027s `forEachSeries` and `forEachLimit` functions do not limit the number of requests"
}
GHSA-3PRJ-6HQW-CM82
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-18 21:09 – Updated: 2026-07-15 21:51Impact
When a JWE uses a password-based key-encryption algorithm (PBES2-HS256+A128KW, PBES2-HS384+A192KW, PBES2-HS512+A256KW), PBES2AESKW::unwrapKey() reads the p2c (PBKDF2 iteration count) parameter directly from the attacker-controlled JOSE header and passes it to hash_pbkdf2() with no upper bound. The only validation performed (checkHeaderAdditionalParameters()) was is_int($p2c) && $p2c > 0.
An unauthenticated attacker can craft a single JWE whose protected header sets a very large p2c (e.g. 100_000_000 ≈ 87 s of CPU, or PHP_INT_MAX), forcing a worker to spend an arbitrary amount of CPU inside PBKDF2 before the key unwrap can even fail. The decrypter swallows the eventual exception, so the attacker pays almost nothing while the server burns CPU. JSON General serialization (multiple recipients) and multi-key JWKSets multiply the cost. This is a classic uncontrolled-resource-consumption (CWE-400) denial of service.
Affected configurations
Applications that register any PBES2-HS*+A*KW algorithm in their decryption AlgorithmManager.
Patches
PBES2AESKW now enforces a configurable maximum iteration count (DEFAULT_MAX_COUNT = 1_000_000, well above realistic legitimate values which are a few thousand) in checkHeaderAdditionalParameters(), before any PBKDF2 computation. The bound is exposed as a constructor argument so operators can tune it.
Workarounds
Before upgrading: validate/limit the p2c header with a custom header checker, or do not enable PBES2 algorithms for untrusted tokens.
References
- RFC 7518 §4.8 (PBES2)
- CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
Résolution
Un correctif a été préparé sur une branche dédiée basée sur 3.4.x, avec des tests anti-régression dédiés (fork privé temporaire de cette advisory, PR #1).
PBES2 — PBES2AESKW::unwrapKey() borne désormais le paramètre p2c (constante DEFAULT_MAX_COUNT = 1_000_000, configurable via le constructeur) avant tout appel à hash_pbkdf2(), empêchant l'amplification CPU (DoS).
Validation : php -l OK, PHPUnit vert, aucune nouvelle erreur PHPStan introduite (différentiel nul vs 3.4.x), aucun commentaire ajouté dans le code source. Après merge, cascade prévue 3.4.x → 4.0.x → 4.1.x.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-library"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.4.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-framework"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.4.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-library"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.0.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-library"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-framework"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.0.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-framework"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-18T21:09:01Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nWhen a JWE uses a password-based key-encryption algorithm (`PBES2-HS256+A128KW`, `PBES2-HS384+A192KW`, `PBES2-HS512+A256KW`), `PBES2AESKW::unwrapKey()` reads the `p2c` (PBKDF2 iteration count) parameter directly from the attacker-controlled JOSE header and passes it to `hash_pbkdf2()` with **no upper bound**. The only validation performed (`checkHeaderAdditionalParameters()`) was `is_int($p2c) \u0026\u0026 $p2c \u003e 0`.\n\nAn unauthenticated attacker can craft a single JWE whose protected header sets a very large `p2c` (e.g. `100_000_000` \u2248 87 s of CPU, or `PHP_INT_MAX`), forcing a worker to spend an arbitrary amount of CPU inside PBKDF2 **before** the key unwrap can even fail. The decrypter swallows the eventual exception, so the attacker pays almost nothing while the server burns CPU. JSON General serialization (multiple recipients) and multi-key JWKSets multiply the cost. This is a classic uncontrolled-resource-consumption (CWE-400) denial of service.\n\n### Affected configurations\n\nApplications that register any `PBES2-HS*+A*KW` algorithm in their decryption `AlgorithmManager`.\n\n### Patches\n\n`PBES2AESKW` now enforces a configurable maximum iteration count (`DEFAULT_MAX_COUNT = 1_000_000`, well above realistic legitimate values which are a few thousand) in `checkHeaderAdditionalParameters()`, before any PBKDF2 computation. The bound is exposed as a constructor argument so operators can tune it.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nBefore upgrading: validate/limit the `p2c` header with a custom header checker, or do not enable PBES2 algorithms for untrusted tokens.\n\n### References\n\n- RFC 7518 \u00a74.8 (PBES2)\n- CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption\n\n## R\u00e9solution\n\nUn correctif a \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9par\u00e9 sur une branche d\u00e9di\u00e9e bas\u00e9e sur `3.4.x`, avec des tests anti-r\u00e9gression d\u00e9di\u00e9s (fork priv\u00e9 temporaire de cette advisory, PR #1).\n\n**PBES2** \u2014 `PBES2AESKW::unwrapKey()` borne d\u00e9sormais le param\u00e8tre `p2c` (constante `DEFAULT_MAX_COUNT = 1_000_000`, configurable via le constructeur) avant tout appel \u00e0 `hash_pbkdf2()`, emp\u00eachant l\u0027amplification CPU (DoS).\n\n**Validation :** `php -l` OK, PHPUnit vert, aucune nouvelle erreur PHPStan introduite (diff\u00e9rentiel nul vs `3.4.x`), aucun commentaire ajout\u00e9 dans le code source. Apr\u00e8s merge, cascade pr\u00e9vue `3.4.x \u2192 4.0.x \u2192 4.1.x`.",
"id": "GHSA-3prj-6hqw-cm82",
"modified": "2026-07-15T21:51:04Z",
"published": "2026-06-18T21:09:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/web-token/jwt-framework/security/advisories/GHSA-3prj-6hqw-cm82"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FriendsOfPHP/security-advisories/blob/master/web-token/jwt-library/GHSA-3prj-6hqw-cm82.yaml"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/web-token/jwt-framework"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/web-token/jwt-framework/releases/tag/3.4.10"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/web-token/jwt-framework/releases/tag/4.0.7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/web-token/jwt-framework/releases/tag/4.1.7"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "PHP JWT Library: PBES2-HS*+A*KW unwrap accepts an unbounded p2c iteration count, enabling CPU-amplification denial of service"
}
GHSA-3R46-584R-XX8V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-02 18:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 04:29Regular expressions used to filter out forbidden properties and values from style directives in calls to console.log weren't accounting for external URLs. Data could then be potentially exfiltrated from the browser. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 109, Thunderbird < 102.7, and Firefox ESR < 102.7.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-23603"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-02T17:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Regular expressions used to filter out forbidden properties and values from style directives in calls to \u003ccode\u003econsole.log\u003c/code\u003e weren\u0027t accounting for external URLs. Data could then be potentially exfiltrated from the browser. This vulnerability affects Firefox \u003c 109, Thunderbird \u003c 102.7, and Firefox ESR \u003c 102.7.",
"id": "GHSA-3r46-584r-xx8v",
"modified": "2024-04-04T04:29:41Z",
"published": "2023-06-02T18:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-23603"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1800832"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2023-01"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2023-02"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2023-03"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3R4F-V62R-GJ86
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:42 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:42The ReadCINImage function in coders/cin.c in ImageMagick before 6.9.9-0 and 7.x before 7.0.6-1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via a crafted file.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-11525"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-07-23T03:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The ReadCINImage function in coders/cin.c in ImageMagick before 6.9.9-0 and 7.x before 7.0.6-1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via a crafted file.",
"id": "GHSA-3r4f-v62r-gj86",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:42:23Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:42:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-11525"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/issues/519"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867810"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/99931"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3RFF-XJQ9-PG37
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:37 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:37There is a memory leak vulnerability in some versions of Huawei CloudEngine product. An unauthenticated, remote attacker may exploit this vulnerability by sending specific message to the affected product. Due to not release the allocated memory properly, successful exploit may cause memory leak.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-9124"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-12-29T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "There is a memory leak vulnerability in some versions of Huawei CloudEngine product. An unauthenticated, remote attacker may exploit this vulnerability by sending specific message to the affected product. Due to not release the allocated memory properly, successful exploit may cause memory leak.",
"id": "GHSA-3rff-xjq9-pg37",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:37:31Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:37:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-9124"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.huawei.com/en/psirt/security-advisories/huawei-sa-20201223-01-cloudengine-en"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
Mitigation
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Mitigation
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
Mitigation
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation
- Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
- The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
- The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
- recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays
- uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
Mitigation
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
Mitigation MIT-38.1
- If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery.
- Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
Mitigation MIT-47
Strategy: Resource Limitation
- Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems.
- When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users.
- Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).
CAPEC-125: Flooding
An adversary consumes the resources of a target by rapidly engaging in a large number of interactions with the target. This type of attack generally exposes a weakness in rate limiting or flow. When successful this attack prevents legitimate users from accessing the service and can cause the target to crash. This attack differs from resource depletion through leaks or allocations in that the latter attacks do not rely on the volume of requests made to the target but instead focus on manipulation of the target's operations. The key factor in a flooding attack is the number of requests the adversary can make in a given period of time. The greater this number, the more likely an attack is to succeed against a given target.
CAPEC-130: Excessive Allocation
An adversary causes the target to allocate excessive resources to servicing the attackers' request, thereby reducing the resources available for legitimate services and degrading or denying services. Usually, this attack focuses on memory allocation, but any finite resource on the target could be the attacked, including bandwidth, processing cycles, or other resources. This attack does not attempt to force this allocation through a large number of requests (that would be Resource Depletion through Flooding) but instead uses one or a small number of requests that are carefully formatted to force the target to allocate excessive resources to service this request(s). Often this attack takes advantage of a bug in the target to cause the target to allocate resources vastly beyond what would be needed for a normal request.
CAPEC-147: XML Ping of the Death
An attacker initiates a resource depletion attack where a large number of small XML messages are delivered at a sufficiently rapid rate to cause a denial of service or crash of the target. Transactions such as repetitive SOAP transactions can deplete resources faster than a simple flooding attack because of the additional resources used by the SOAP protocol and the resources necessary to process SOAP messages. The transactions used are immaterial as long as they cause resource utilization on the target. In other words, this is a normal flooding attack augmented by using messages that will require extra processing on the target.
CAPEC-197: Exponential Data Expansion
An adversary submits data to a target application which contains nested exponential data expansion to produce excessively large output. Many data format languages allow the definition of macro-like structures that can be used to simplify the creation of complex structures. However, this capability can be abused to create excessive demands on a processor's CPU and memory. A small number of nested expansions can result in an exponential growth in demands on memory.
CAPEC-229: Serialized Data Parameter Blowup
This attack exploits certain serialized data parsers (e.g., XML, YAML, etc.) which manage data in an inefficient manner. The attacker crafts an serialized data file with multiple configuration parameters in the same dataset. In a vulnerable parser, this results in a denial of service condition where CPU resources are exhausted because of the parsing algorithm. The weakness being exploited is tied to parser implementation and not language specific.
CAPEC-230: Serialized Data with Nested Payloads
Applications often need to transform data in and out of a data format (e.g., XML and YAML) by using a parser. It may be possible for an adversary to inject data that may have an adverse effect on the parser when it is being processed. Many data format languages allow the definition of macro-like structures that can be used to simplify the creation of complex structures. By nesting these structures, causing the data to be repeatedly substituted, an adversary can cause the parser to consume more resources while processing, causing excessive memory consumption and CPU utilization.
CAPEC-231: Oversized Serialized Data Payloads
An adversary injects oversized serialized data payloads into a parser during data processing to produce adverse effects upon the parser such as exhausting system resources and arbitrary code execution.
CAPEC-469: HTTP DoS
An attacker performs flooding at the HTTP level to bring down only a particular web application rather than anything listening on a TCP/IP connection. This denial of service attack requires substantially fewer packets to be sent which makes DoS harder to detect. This is an equivalent of SYN flood in HTTP. The idea is to keep the HTTP session alive indefinitely and then repeat that hundreds of times. This attack targets resource depletion weaknesses in web server software. The web server will wait to attacker's responses on the initiated HTTP sessions while the connection threads are being exhausted.
CAPEC-482: TCP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the TCP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service. These attacks exploit the weakness within the TCP protocol where there is some state information for the connection the server needs to maintain. This often involves the use of TCP SYN messages.
CAPEC-486: UDP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the UDP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming the available network bandwidth. Additionally, firewalls often open a port for each UDP connection destined for a service with an open UDP port, meaning the firewalls in essence save the connection state thus the high packet nature of a UDP flood can also overwhelm resources allocated to the firewall. UDP attacks can also target services like DNS or VoIP which utilize these protocols. Additionally, due to the session-less nature of the UDP protocol, the source of a packet is easily spoofed making it difficult to find the source of the attack.
CAPEC-487: ICMP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the ICMP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming the available network bandwidth. A typical attack involves a victim server receiving ICMP packets at a high rate from a wide range of source addresses. Additionally, due to the session-less nature of the ICMP protocol, the source of a packet is easily spoofed making it difficult to find the source of the attack.
CAPEC-488: HTTP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the HTTP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming resources at the application layer such as web services and their infrastructure. These attacks use legitimate session-based HTTP GET requests designed to consume large amounts of a server's resources. Since these are legitimate sessions this attack is very difficult to detect.
CAPEC-489: SSL Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the SSL protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming all the available resources on the server side. These attacks take advantage of the asymmetric relationship between the processing power used by the client and the processing power used by the server to create a secure connection. In this manner the attacker can make a large number of HTTPS requests on a low provisioned machine to tie up a disproportionately large number of resources on the server. The clients then continue to keep renegotiating the SSL connection. When multiplied by a large number of attacking machines, this attack can result in a crash or loss of service to legitimate users.
CAPEC-490: Amplification
An adversary may execute an amplification where the size of a response is far greater than that of the request that generates it. The goal of this attack is to use a relatively few resources to create a large amount of traffic against a target server. To execute this attack, an adversary send a request to a 3rd party service, spoofing the source address to be that of the target server. The larger response that is generated by the 3rd party service is then sent to the target server. By sending a large number of initial requests, the adversary can generate a tremendous amount of traffic directed at the target. The greater the discrepancy in size between the initial request and the final payload delivered to the target increased the effectiveness of this attack.
CAPEC-491: Quadratic Data Expansion
An adversary exploits macro-like substitution to cause a denial of service situation due to excessive memory being allocated to fully expand the data. The result of this denial of service could cause the application to freeze or crash. This involves defining a very large entity and using it multiple times in a single entity substitution. CAPEC-197 is a similar attack pattern, but it is easier to discover and defend against. This attack pattern does not perform multi-level substitution and therefore does not obviously appear to consume extensive resources.
CAPEC-493: SOAP Array Blowup
An adversary may execute an attack on a web service that uses SOAP messages in communication. By sending a very large SOAP array declaration to the web service, the attacker forces the web service to allocate space for the array elements before they are parsed by the XML parser. The attacker message is typically small in size containing a large array declaration of say 1,000,000 elements and a couple of array elements. This attack targets exhaustion of the memory resources of the web service.
CAPEC-494: TCP Fragmentation
An adversary may execute a TCP Fragmentation attack against a target with the intention of avoiding filtering rules of network controls, by attempting to fragment the TCP packet such that the headers flag field is pushed into the second fragment which typically is not filtered.
CAPEC-495: UDP Fragmentation
An attacker may execute a UDP Fragmentation attack against a target server in an attempt to consume resources such as bandwidth and CPU. IP fragmentation occurs when an IP datagram is larger than the MTU of the route the datagram has to traverse. Typically the attacker will use large UDP packets over 1500 bytes of data which forces fragmentation as ethernet MTU is 1500 bytes. This attack is a variation on a typical UDP flood but it enables more network bandwidth to be consumed with fewer packets. Additionally it has the potential to consume server CPU resources and fill memory buffers associated with the processing and reassembling of fragmented packets.
CAPEC-496: ICMP Fragmentation
An attacker may execute a ICMP Fragmentation attack against a target with the intention of consuming resources or causing a crash. The attacker crafts a large number of identical fragmented IP packets containing a portion of a fragmented ICMP message. The attacker these sends these messages to a target host which causes the host to become non-responsive. Another vector may be sending a fragmented ICMP message to a target host with incorrect sizes in the header which causes the host to hang.
CAPEC-528: XML Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using XML messages with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a web service. These attacks are accomplished by sending a large number of XML based requests and letting the service attempt to parse each one. In many cases this type of an attack will result in a XML Denial of Service (XDoS) due to an application becoming unstable, freezing, or crashing.