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-44MJ-PWH6-PW78
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:11 – Updated: 2022-07-11 00:00An uncontrolled memory allocation in DataBufdata(subBox.length-sizeof(box)) function of Exiv2 0.27 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (DOS) via a crafted input.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-18899"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-08-19T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An uncontrolled memory allocation in DataBufdata(subBox.length-sizeof(box)) function of Exiv2 0.27 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (DOS) via a crafted input.",
"id": "GHSA-44mj-pwh6-pw78",
"modified": "2022-07-11T00:00:23Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:11:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-18899"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Exiv2/exiv2/issues/742"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/789.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202312-06"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-44P7-9XX4-HF2G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-25 21:30 – Updated: 2026-03-30 16:11A maliciously crafted TIFF file can cause image decoding to attempt to allocate up 4GiB of memory, causing either excessive resource consumption or an out-of-memory error.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "golang.org/x/image"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.38.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-33809"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-434",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-30T16:11:31Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-25T19:16:51Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A maliciously crafted TIFF file can cause image decoding to attempt to allocate up 4GiB of memory, causing either excessive resource consumption or an out-of-memory error.",
"id": "GHSA-44p7-9xx4-hf2g",
"modified": "2026-03-30T16:11:31Z",
"published": "2026-03-25T21:30:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33809"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://cs.opensource.google/go/x/image"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://go.dev/cl/757660"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://go.dev/issue/78267"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2026-4815"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Go Images vulnerable to an out-of-memory error via a crafted TIFF file"
}
GHSA-44W2-C6GQ-2XXX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-06 06:31 – Updated: 2025-03-06 21:31IBM Aspera Shares 1.9.0 through 1.10.0 PL6 does not properly rate limit the frequency that an authenticated user can send emails, which could result in email flooding or a denial of service.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-38316"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-05T23:15:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Aspera Shares\u00a01.9.0 through 1.10.0 PL6 does not properly rate limit the frequency that an authenticated user can send emails, which could result in email flooding or a denial of service.",
"id": "GHSA-44w2-c6gq-2xxx",
"modified": "2025-03-06T21:31:25Z",
"published": "2025-02-06T06:31:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-38316"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7182490"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-44WJ-2XJX-WF38
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-06 18:31 – Updated: 2026-01-06 18:31Aerohive HiveOS contains a denial of service vulnerability in the NetConfig UI that allows unauthenticated attackers to render the web interface unusable. Attackers can send a crafted HTTP request to the action.php5 script with specific parameters to trigger a 5-minute service disruption.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-36907"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-06T16:15:46Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Aerohive HiveOS contains a denial of service vulnerability in the NetConfig UI that allows unauthenticated attackers to render the web interface unusable. Attackers can send a crafted HTTP request to the action.php5 script with specific parameters to trigger a 5-minute service disruption.",
"id": "GHSA-44wj-2xjx-wf38",
"modified": "2026-01-06T18:31:33Z",
"published": "2026-01-06T18:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-36907"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://advisories.ncsc.nl/2020/ncsc-2020-0367.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/iq-engine-hive-os-announcements/bg-p/IQ_Engine_Hive_OS_Announcements"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/181649"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://packetstorm.news/files/id/157587"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/48441"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.extremenetworks.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/extreme-networks-aerohive-hiveos-x-x-unauthenticated-remote-denial-of-service"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zeroscience.mk/en/vulnerabilities/ZSL-2020-5566.php"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"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/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-44X9-G356-QCMM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-13 18:30 – Updated: 2022-12-15 06:30In NotificationChannel of NotificationChannel.java, there is a possible failure to persist permissions settings due to resource exhaustion. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.Product: AndroidVersions: Android-10 Android-11 Android-12 Android-12L Android-13Android ID: A-242702935
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-20485"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-13T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In NotificationChannel of NotificationChannel.java, there is a possible failure to persist permissions settings due to resource exhaustion. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.Product: AndroidVersions: Android-10 Android-11 Android-12 Android-12L Android-13Android ID: A-242702935",
"id": "GHSA-44x9-g356-qcmm",
"modified": "2022-12-15T06:30:29Z",
"published": "2022-12-13T18:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-20485"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2022-12-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-456G-P3F3-7247
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-11 00:00 – Updated: 2022-06-18 00:00An issue was discovered in Bento4 1.2. The allocator is out of memory in /Source/C++/Core/Ap4Array.h.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-31285"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-10T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Bento4 1.2. The allocator is out of memory in /Source/C++/Core/Ap4Array.h.",
"id": "GHSA-456g-p3f3-7247",
"modified": "2022-06-18T00:00:22Z",
"published": "2022-06-11T00:00:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-31285"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/axiomatic-systems/Bento4/issues/702"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-45FF-X9P5-MQ3G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-12 12:32 – Updated: 2026-05-12 12:32A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC CN 4100 (All versions < V5.0). The affected application is susceptible to resource exhaustion when subjected to high volume of TCP SYN packets This could allow an attacker to render the service unavailable and cause denial-of-service conditions by overwhelming system resources.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-22925"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-12T10:16:44Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC CN 4100 (All versions \u003c V5.0). The affected application is susceptible to resource exhaustion when subjected to high volume of TCP SYN packets\nThis could allow an attacker to render the service unavailable and cause denial-of-service conditions by overwhelming system resources.",
"id": "GHSA-45ff-x9p5-mq3g",
"modified": "2026-05-12T12:32:14Z",
"published": "2026-05-12T12:32:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-22925"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-032379.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"
},
{
"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/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-45Q4-4828-537R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-08 15:31 – Updated: 2026-07-07 12:31In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfilter: flowtable: strictly check for maximum number of actions
The maximum number of flowtable hardware offload actions in IPv6 is:
- ethernet mangling (4 payload actions, 2 for each ethernet address)
- SNAT (4 payload actions)
- DNAT (4 payload actions)
- Double VLAN (4 vlan actions, 2 for popping vlan, and 2 for pushing) for QinQ.
- Redirect (1 action)
Which makes 17, while the maximum is 16. But act_ct supports for tunnels actions too. Note that payload action operates at 32-bit word level, so mangling an IPv6 address takes 4 payload actions.
Update flow_action_entry_next() calls to check for the maximum number of supported actions.
While at it, rise the maximum number of actions per flow from 16 to 24 so this works fine with IPv6 setups.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-43329"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-08T14:16:42Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nnetfilter: flowtable: strictly check for maximum number of actions\n\nThe maximum number of flowtable hardware offload actions in IPv6 is:\n\n* ethernet mangling (4 payload actions, 2 for each ethernet address)\n* SNAT (4 payload actions)\n* DNAT (4 payload actions)\n* Double VLAN (4 vlan actions, 2 for popping vlan, and 2 for pushing)\n for QinQ.\n* Redirect (1 action)\n\nWhich makes 17, while the maximum is 16. But act_ct supports for tunnels\nactions too. Note that payload action operates at 32-bit word level, so\nmangling an IPv6 address takes 4 payload actions.\n\nUpdate flow_action_entry_next() calls to check for the maximum number of\nsupported actions.\n\nWhile at it, rise the maximum number of actions per flow from 16 to 24\nso this works fine with IPv6 setups.",
"id": "GHSA-45q4-4828-537r",
"modified": "2026-07-07T12:31:29Z",
"published": "2026-05-08T15:31:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-43329"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-43329.json"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/fe9018d3e94329f1951b00805a8640bc06f56ead"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ead66c77303f760f6c30be96e2e20d5a77cef614"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/879959a7a2be814dd57568655eafa3d8f4d0309e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/76522fcdbc3a02b568f5d957f7e66fc194abb893"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/57c78bd2e2dd08897acd35b2bf8bcef322e36f5e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5382bb03e9c33b089d60788478b922a2dca284cc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/504c9456699dcf4d15195ef34a0fa94a80bfc877"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2468124"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-43329"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:35896"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:35863"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:34095"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:34094"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33900"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33899"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33215"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:30848"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:27713"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26428"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26427"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:23329"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-45VH-RPC8-HXPP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-13 18:56 – Updated: 2026-03-24 21:02Summary
The chunked upload completion path for file requests does not validate the total file size against the per-request MaxSize limit. An attacker with a public file request link can split an oversized file into chunks each under MaxSize and upload them sequentially, bypassing the size restriction entirely. Files up to the server's global MaxFileSizeMB are accepted regardless of the file request's configured limit.
Impact
Any guest with access to a shared file request link can upload files far larger than the administrator-configured size limit, up to the server's global MaxFileSizeMB. This allows unauthorized storage consumption, circumvention of administrative resource policies, and potential service disruption through storage exhaustion. No data exposure or privilege escalation occurs.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.2.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/forceu/gokapi"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.2.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-30961"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-13T18:56:51Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-13T19:54:35Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nThe chunked upload completion path for file requests does not validate the total file size against the per-request `MaxSize` limit. An attacker with a public file request link can split an oversized file into chunks each under `MaxSize` and upload them sequentially, bypassing the size restriction entirely. Files up to the server\u0027s global `MaxFileSizeMB` are accepted regardless of the file request\u0027s configured limit.\n\n### Impact\n\nAny guest with access to a shared file request link can upload files far larger than the administrator-configured size limit, up to the server\u0027s global `MaxFileSizeMB`. This allows unauthorized storage consumption, circumvention of administrative resource policies, and potential service disruption through storage exhaustion. No data exposure or privilege escalation occurs.",
"id": "GHSA-45vh-rpc8-hxpp",
"modified": "2026-03-24T21:02:48Z",
"published": "2026-03-13T18:56:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Forceu/Gokapi/security/advisories/GHSA-45vh-rpc8-hxpp"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-30961"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Forceu/Gokapi"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Forceu/Gokapi/releases/tag/v2.2.4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2026-4695"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Gokapi\u0027s File Request MaxSize Limit Bypassed via Multi-Chunk Upload"
}
GHSA-45VQ-73JX-GGVM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-30 09:32 – Updated: 2025-11-04 00:31In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
IB/core: Implement a limit on UMAD receive List
The existing behavior of ib_umad, which maintains received MAD packets in an unbounded list, poses a risk of uncontrolled growth. As user-space applications extract packets from this list, the rate of extraction may not match the rate of incoming packets, leading to potential list overflow.
To address this, we introduce a limit to the size of the list. After considering typical scenarios, such as OpenSM processing, which can handle approximately 100k packets per second, and the 1-second retry timeout for most packets, we set the list size limit to 200k. Packets received beyond this limit are dropped, assuming they are likely timed out by the time they are handled by user-space.
Notably, packets queued on the receive list due to reasons like timed-out sends are preserved even when the list is full.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-42145"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-07-30T08:15:06Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nIB/core: Implement a limit on UMAD receive List\n\nThe existing behavior of ib_umad, which maintains received MAD\npackets in an unbounded list, poses a risk of uncontrolled growth.\nAs user-space applications extract packets from this list, the rate\nof extraction may not match the rate of incoming packets, leading\nto potential list overflow.\n\nTo address this, we introduce a limit to the size of the list. After\nconsidering typical scenarios, such as OpenSM processing, which can\nhandle approximately 100k packets per second, and the 1-second retry\ntimeout for most packets, we set the list size limit to 200k. Packets\nreceived beyond this limit are dropped, assuming they are likely timed\nout by the time they are handled by user-space.\n\nNotably, packets queued on the receive list due to reasons like\ntimed-out sends are preserved even when the list is full.",
"id": "GHSA-45vq-73jx-ggvm",
"modified": "2025-11-04T00:31:07Z",
"published": "2024-07-30T09:32:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-42145"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1288cf1cceb0e6df276e182f5412370fb4169bcb"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/62349fbf86b5e13b02721bdadf98c29afd1e7b5f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/63d202d948bb6d3a28cd8e8b96b160fa53e18baa"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a6627fba793cc75b7365d9504a0095fb2902dda4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b4913702419d064ec4c4bbf7270643c95cc89a1b"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b8c5f635997f49c625178d1a0cb32a80ed33abe6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ca0b44e20a6f3032224599f02e7c8fb49525c894"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d73cb8862e4d6760ccc94d3b57b9ef6271400607"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/01/msg00001.html"
}
],
"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.