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-462J-78VJ-JJPR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:41 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:41A vulnerability has been identified in SCALANCE W780 and W740 (IEEE 802.11n) family (All versions < V6.3). Sending specially crafted packets through the ARP protocol to an affected device could cause a partial denial-of-service, preventing the device to operate normally for a short period of time.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-25666"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-02-09T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been identified in SCALANCE W780 and W740 (IEEE 802.11n) family (All versions \u003c V6.3). Sending specially crafted packets through the ARP protocol to an affected device could cause a partial denial-of-service, preventing the device to operate normally for a short period of time.",
"id": "GHSA-462j-78vj-jjpr",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:41:37Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:41:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-25666"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-686152.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ics/advisories/icsa-21-040-07"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-4644-GG9V-FR7W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:14 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:14A vulnerability in the UDP protocol implementation for Cisco IoT Field Network Director (IoT-FND) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to exhaust system resources, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. The vulnerability is due to improper resource management for UDP ingress packets. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a high rate of UDP packets to an affected system within a short period of time. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to exhaust available system resources, resulting in a DoS condition.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-1644"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-01-23T23:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the UDP protocol implementation for Cisco IoT Field Network Director (IoT-FND) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to exhaust system resources, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. The vulnerability is due to improper resource management for UDP ingress packets. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a high rate of UDP packets to an affected system within a short period of time. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to exhaust available system resources, resulting in a DoS condition.",
"id": "GHSA-4644-gg9v-fr7w",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:14:59Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:14:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-1644"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190123-iot-fnd-dos"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/106709"
}
],
"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-468C-VQ7P-GH64
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-20 15:35 – Updated: 2026-05-20 15:35Summary
An Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Plug.Conn.read_part_headers/2 allows an unauthenticated attacker to exhaust server memory by sending a crafted multipart/form-data request, causing a denial of service.
Details
Plug.Conn.read_part_headers/2 in lib/plug/conn.ex does not obey its :length parameter. There is no upper bound on the size of the accumulated buffer. By contrast, the sibling function read_part_body has an explicit byte_size(acc) > length guard that stops accumulation once a limit is reached. No such guard exists in read_part_headers.
Impact
This is a denial-of-service vulnerability. Any application using Plug.Parsers with the :multipart parser, or calling Plug.Conn.read_part_headers/2 directly, is affected. An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger the issue by sending crafted HTTP requests with no special privileges.
References
- Intro Commit: https://github.com/elixir-plug/plug/commit/c52b2f32c90bccd718202bafccb5f95594e30183
- Patch Commit: https://github.com/elixir-plug/plug/commit/d878b42efea9f12b243dc3e362a2ed048a798203
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Hex",
"name": "plug"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.4.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.15.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Hex",
"name": "plug"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.16.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.16.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Hex",
"name": "plug"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.17.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.17.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Hex",
"name": "plug"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.18.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.18.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Hex",
"name": "plug"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.19.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.19.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-8468"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-20T15:35:13Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-14T11:16:18Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nAn Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in `Plug.Conn.read_part_headers/2` allows an unauthenticated attacker to exhaust server memory by sending a crafted `multipart/form-data` request, causing a denial of service.\n\n### Details\n\n`Plug.Conn.read_part_headers/2` in `lib/plug/conn.ex` does not obey its `:length` parameter. There is no upper bound on the size of the accumulated buffer. By contrast, the sibling function `read_part_body` has an explicit `byte_size(acc) \u003e length` guard that stops accumulation once a limit is reached. No such guard exists in `read_part_headers`.\n\n### Impact\n\nThis is a denial-of-service vulnerability. Any application using `Plug.Parsers` with the `:multipart` parser, or calling `Plug.Conn.read_part_headers/2` directly, is affected. An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger the issue by sending crafted HTTP requests with no special privileges.\n\n### References\n\n* Intro Commit: https://github.com/elixir-plug/plug/commit/c52b2f32c90bccd718202bafccb5f95594e30183\n* Patch Commit: https://github.com/elixir-plug/plug/commit/d878b42efea9f12b243dc3e362a2ed048a798203",
"id": "GHSA-468c-vq7p-gh64",
"modified": "2026-05-20T15:35:13Z",
"published": "2026-05-20T15:35:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-plug/plug/security/advisories/GHSA-468c-vq7p-gh64"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-8468"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-plug/plug/commit/2cb7958d33030aa826b0c7404375844d4593d43a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-plug/plug/commit/33858427c7f2737d560a2e40a0c9a9270d77d1d7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-plug/plug/commit/aa69c5ece99c40ded88b8c6581ecc86664b0b734"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-plug/plug/commit/d5dfffe25e975585227b1b85d247b0d14164bc45"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-plug/plug/commit/df812a1527bae9e941965e897308a2b8bbf83a94"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-8466.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-8468.html"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-plug/plug"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-8468"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Plug: Unbounded buffer accumulation in multipart header parsing causes denial of service"
}
GHSA-46V5-RJR4-JPQG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-17 00:00 – Updated: 2022-02-26 00:01ESXi contains a slow HTTP POST denial-of-service vulnerability in rhttpproxy. A malicious actor with network access to ESXi may exploit this issue to create a denial-of-service condition by overwhelming rhttpproxy service with multiple requests.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-22050"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-02-16T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "ESXi contains a slow HTTP POST denial-of-service vulnerability in rhttpproxy. A malicious actor with network access to ESXi may exploit this issue to create a denial-of-service condition by overwhelming rhttpproxy service with multiple requests.",
"id": "GHSA-46v5-rjr4-jpqg",
"modified": "2022-02-26T00:01:04Z",
"published": "2022-02-17T00:00:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-22050"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vmware.com/security/advisories/VMSA-2022-0004.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-46WH-PXPV-Q5GQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-06 18:36 – Updated: 2026-03-09 15:58Summary
The default keyGenerator in express-rate-limit applies IPv6 subnet masking (/56 by default) to all addresses that net.isIPv6() returns true for. This includes IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses (::ffff:x.x.x.x), which Node.js returns as request.ip on dual-stack servers.
Because the first 80 bits of all IPv4-mapped addresses are zero, a /56 (or any /32 to /80) subnet mask produces the same network key (::/56) for every IPv4 client. This collapses all IPv4 traffic into a single rate-limit bucket: one client exhausting the limit causes HTTP 429 for all other IPv4 clients.
Details
Root Cause
In source/ip-key-generator.ts:
export function ipKeyGenerator(ip: string, ipv6Subnet: number | false = 56) {
if (ipv6Subnet && isIPv6(ip)) {
return `${new Address6(`${ip}/${ipv6Subnet}`).startAddress().correctForm()}/${ipv6Subnet}`
}
return ip
}
net.isIPv6('::ffff:192.168.1.1') returns true, so IPv4-mapped addresses enter the subnet masking path. With a /56 prefix, the start address for any ::ffff:x.x.x.x is ::, producing the key ::/56.
Proof of Concept
const { isIPv6 } = require('net');
const { Address6 } = require('ip-address');
function ipKeyGenerator(ip, ipv6Subnet = 56) {
if (ipv6Subnet && isIPv6(ip)) {
return `${new Address6(`${ip}/${ipv6Subnet}`).startAddress().correctForm()}/${ipv6Subnet}`;
}
return ip;
}
console.log(ipKeyGenerator('::ffff:192.168.1.1', 56)); // ::/56
console.log(ipKeyGenerator('::ffff:10.0.0.1', 56)); // ::/56
console.log(ipKeyGenerator('::ffff:8.8.8.8', 56)); // ::/56
// ALL produce '::/56' — same bucket
End-to-End Validation
On a dual-stack Express server (app.listen(port, '::')), tested with Express 5.2.1:
- request.ip for IPv4 clients is ::ffff:127.0.0.1
- Rate limit key resolves to ::/56
- After limit requests from any IPv4 client, all other IPv4 clients receive 429
When This Occurs
- Node.js dual-stack servers (default on Linux when listening on
::) - Any environment where
request.ipcontains IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses - Only affects the default
keyGenerator(custom key generators are not affected)
Impact
- Denial of Service: A single client can block all IPv4 traffic by exhausting the shared rate limit
- Affects default configuration: No special options needed to trigger this
Affected Versions
All versions of express-rate-limit between v8.0.0 and v8.2.1.
Fix
This issue was fixed in commit 14e53888cdfd1b9798faf5b634c4206409e27fc4. This fix has been included in release v8.3.0, and backported to all affected minor versions in the form of releases v8.2.2, v8.1.1, and v8.0.2.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "express-rate-limit"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "8.2.0"
},
{
"fixed": "8.2.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "express-rate-limit"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "8.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "8.1.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"8.1.0"
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "express-rate-limit"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "8.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "8.0.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-30827"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-06T18:36:56Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-07T06:16:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe default `keyGenerator` in express-rate-limit applies IPv6 subnet masking (`/56` by default) to all addresses that `net.isIPv6()` returns true for. This includes IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses (`::ffff:x.x.x.x`), which Node.js returns as `request.ip` on dual-stack servers.\n\nBecause the first 80 bits of all IPv4-mapped addresses are zero, a `/56` (or any `/32` to `/80`) subnet mask produces the same network key (`::/56`) for **every** IPv4 client. This collapses all IPv4 traffic into a single rate-limit bucket: one client exhausting the limit causes HTTP 429 for all other IPv4 clients.\n\n## Details\n\n### Root Cause\n\nIn `source/ip-key-generator.ts`:\n\n```typescript\nexport function ipKeyGenerator(ip: string, ipv6Subnet: number | false = 56) {\n if (ipv6Subnet \u0026\u0026 isIPv6(ip)) {\n return `${new Address6(`${ip}/${ipv6Subnet}`).startAddress().correctForm()}/${ipv6Subnet}`\n }\n return ip\n}\n```\n\n`net.isIPv6(\u0027::ffff:192.168.1.1\u0027)` returns `true`, so IPv4-mapped addresses enter the subnet masking path. With a `/56` prefix, the start address for any `::ffff:x.x.x.x` is `::`, producing the key `::/56`.\n\n### Proof of Concept\n\n```javascript\nconst { isIPv6 } = require(\u0027net\u0027);\nconst { Address6 } = require(\u0027ip-address\u0027);\n\nfunction ipKeyGenerator(ip, ipv6Subnet = 56) {\n if (ipv6Subnet \u0026\u0026 isIPv6(ip)) {\n return `${new Address6(`${ip}/${ipv6Subnet}`).startAddress().correctForm()}/${ipv6Subnet}`;\n }\n return ip;\n}\n\nconsole.log(ipKeyGenerator(\u0027::ffff:192.168.1.1\u0027, 56)); // ::/56\nconsole.log(ipKeyGenerator(\u0027::ffff:10.0.0.1\u0027, 56)); // ::/56\nconsole.log(ipKeyGenerator(\u0027::ffff:8.8.8.8\u0027, 56)); // ::/56\n// ALL produce \u0027::/56\u0027 \u2014 same bucket\n```\n\n### End-to-End Validation\n\nOn a dual-stack Express server (`app.listen(port, \u0027::\u0027)`), tested with Express 5.2.1:\n- `request.ip` for IPv4 clients is `::ffff:127.0.0.1`\n- Rate limit key resolves to `::/56`\n- After `limit` requests from any IPv4 client, all other IPv4 clients receive 429\n\n### When This Occurs\n\n- Node.js dual-stack servers (default on Linux when listening on `::`)\n- Any environment where `request.ip` contains IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses\n- Only affects the default `keyGenerator` (custom key generators are not affected)\n\n## Impact\n\n- **Denial of Service**: A single client can block all IPv4 traffic by exhausting the shared rate limit\n- **Affects default configuration**: No special options needed to trigger this\n\n## Affected Versions\n\nAll versions of express-rate-limit between v8.0.0 and v8.2.1.\n\n## Fix\n\nThis issue was fixed in commit 14e53888cdfd1b9798faf5b634c4206409e27fc4. This fix has been included in release v8.3.0, and backported to all affected minor versions in the form of releases v8.2.2, v8.1.1, and v8.0.2.",
"id": "GHSA-46wh-pxpv-q5gq",
"modified": "2026-03-09T15:58:09Z",
"published": "2026-03-06T18:36:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/express-rate-limit/express-rate-limit/security/advisories/GHSA-46wh-pxpv-q5gq"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-30827"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/express-rate-limit/express-rate-limit/commit/14e53888cdfd1b9798faf5b634c4206409e27fc4"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/express-rate-limit/express-rate-limit"
}
],
"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": "express-rate-limit: IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses bypass per-client rate limiting on servers with dual-stack network"
}
GHSA-4735-R254-HCJ8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-07 18:30 – Updated: 2025-11-14 21:30An allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability has been reported to affect File Station 5. If a remote attacker gains an administrator account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to prevent other systems, applications, or processes from accessing the same type of resource.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version: File Station 5 5.5.6.5018 and later
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-53411"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-07T16:15:39Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "An allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability has been reported to affect File Station 5. If a remote attacker gains an administrator account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to prevent other systems, applications, or processes from accessing the same type of resource.\n\nWe have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version:\nFile Station 5 5.5.6.5018 and later",
"id": "GHSA-4735-r254-hcj8",
"modified": "2025-11-14T21:30:28Z",
"published": "2025-11-07T18:30:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-53411"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-25-38"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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-47M2-26RW-J2JW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-05 05:21 – Updated: 2025-06-05 20:15Summary
There is a denial of service vulnerability in the Content-Disposition parsing component of Rack. This is very similar to the previous security issue CVE-2022-44571.
Details
Carefully crafted input can cause Content-Disposition header parsing in Rack to take an unexpected amount of time, possibly resulting in a denial of service attack vector. This header is used typically used in multipart parsing. Any applications that parse multipart posts using Rack (virtually all Rails applications) are impacted.
Credits
Thanks to scyoon for reporting this to the Rails security team
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "rack"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.1.16"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-49007"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-06-05T05:21:34Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-04T23:15:21Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\nThere is a denial of service vulnerability in the Content-Disposition parsing component of Rack. This is very similar to the previous security issue CVE-2022-44571.\n\n### Details\n\nCarefully crafted input can cause Content-Disposition header parsing in Rack to take an unexpected amount of time, possibly resulting in a denial of service attack vector. This header is used typically used in multipart parsing. Any applications that parse multipart posts using Rack (virtually all Rails applications) are impacted.\n\n### Credits\n\nThanks to [scyoon](https://hackerone.com/scyoon) for reporting this to the Rails security team",
"id": "GHSA-47m2-26rw-j2jw",
"modified": "2025-06-05T20:15:06Z",
"published": "2025-06-05T05:21:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rack/rack/security/advisories/GHSA-47m2-26rw-j2jw"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-49007"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rack/rack/commit/4795831a0a310c2d31102749e551b38faab6401f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rack/rack/commit/aed514df37e33907df3c971ed3ca9a0a20ac2901"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/rack/rack"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/rack/CVE-2025-49007.yml"
}
],
"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/E:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "ReDoS Vulnerability in Rack::Multipart handle_mime_head"
}
GHSA-47Q9-M4WW-924M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-25 21:33 – Updated: 2026-06-25 21:33Description
The Package.Unmarshal() function in pkg/types/alpine/apk.go decompresses the signature and control gzip members of an APK file into in-memory buffers without bounding the total decompressed size. The existing max_apk_metadata_size check (default 1MB) is only applied to individual tar entry header sizes after decompression completes, so it does not prevent a decompression bomb from consuming unbounded heap memory.
An attacker can craft a gzip stream that compresses at a ~1000:1 ratio (e.g., 2MB compressed zeros → 2GB decompressed). When submitted as spec.package.content in an Alpine ProposedEntry, the server decompresses the full payload into memory during request processing, triggering a fatal Go runtime out-of-memory error or OS OOM-kill that cannot be caught by the server's recover() middleware.
This is reachable via two unauthenticated endpoints: - POST /api/v1/log/entries (createLogEntry) - POST /api/v1/log/entries/retrieve (searchLogQuery)
Both invoke V001Entry.Canonicalize() → fetchExternalEntities() → apk.Unmarshal(packageData), which performs the unbounded decompression.
Workarounds
There is no effective workaround. Setting max_request_body_size reduces but does not eliminate exposure due to the ~1000:1 compression ratio (a 1MB body limit still allows ~1GB heap allocation). Setting max_apk_metadata_size has no effect on this vulnerability since the check is applied after decompression.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/sigstore/rekor"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.3.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.5.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48702"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-25T21:33:36Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Description\n\nThe `Package.Unmarshal()` function in `pkg/types/alpine/apk.go` decompresses the signature and control gzip members of an APK file into in-memory buffers without bounding the total decompressed size. The existing `max_apk_metadata_size` check (default 1MB) is only applied to individual tar entry header sizes after decompression completes, so it does not prevent a decompression bomb from consuming unbounded heap memory.\n\nAn attacker can craft a gzip stream that compresses at a ~1000:1 ratio (e.g., 2MB compressed zeros \u2192 2GB decompressed). When submitted as spec.package.content in an Alpine `ProposedEntry`, the server decompresses the full payload into memory during request processing, triggering a fatal Go runtime out-of-memory error or OS OOM-kill that cannot be caught by the server\u0027s recover() middleware.\n\nThis is reachable via two unauthenticated endpoints:\n- POST /api/v1/log/entries (createLogEntry)\n- POST /api/v1/log/entries/retrieve (searchLogQuery)\n\nBoth invoke `V001Entry.Canonicalize()` \u2192 `fetchExternalEntities()` \u2192 `apk.Unmarshal(packageData)`, which performs the unbounded decompression.\n\n## Workarounds\n\nThere is no effective workaround. Setting `max_request_body_size` reduces but does not eliminate exposure due to the ~1000:1 compression ratio (a 1MB body limit still allows ~1GB heap allocation). Setting `max_apk_metadata_size` has no effect on this vulnerability since the check is applied after decompression.",
"id": "GHSA-47q9-m4ww-924m",
"modified": "2026-06-25T21:33:36Z",
"published": "2026-06-25T21:33:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sigstore/rekor/security/advisories/GHSA-47q9-m4ww-924m"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/sigstore/rekor"
}
],
"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": "Rekor has an OOM Condition due to Unbounded gzip Decompression in Alpine APK Parsing Logic"
}
GHSA-487G-3M3V-HJHQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-19 18:31 – Updated: 2024-02-29 03:33Insufficient file size checks resulted in a denial of service risk in the file picker's unzip functionality.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "moodle/moodle"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.3.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.3.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "moodle/moodle"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.2.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.2.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "moodle/moodle"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-25978"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-02-21T00:08:30Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-02-19T17:15:08Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Insufficient file size checks resulted in a denial of service risk in the file picker\u0027s unzip functionality.",
"id": "GHSA-487g-3m3v-hjhq",
"modified": "2024-02-29T03:33:05Z",
"published": "2024-02-19T18:31:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-25978"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moodle/moodle/commit/9ba14233597480fb78c04d531050c090de4e60a2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moodle/moodle/commit/a73e0ac76d77b67602f91bb211962813d60bc573"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264074"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KXGBYJ43BUEBUAQZU3DT5I5A3YLF47CB"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=455634"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://git.moodle.org/gw?p=moodle.git\u0026a=search\u0026h=HEAD\u0026st=commit\u0026s=MDL-74641"
}
],
"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": "Uncontrolled Resource Consumption in moodle"
}
GHSA-48XQ-VMGV-HXQW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-28 00:32 – Updated: 2025-11-03 21:32The issue was addressed with improved memory handling. This issue is fixed in visionOS 2.3, Safari 18.3, iOS 18.3 and iPadOS 18.3, macOS Sequoia 15.3, watchOS 11.3, tvOS 18.3. Processing web content may lead to a denial-of-service.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-24158"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-27T22:15:19Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The issue was addressed with improved memory handling. This issue is fixed in visionOS 2.3, Safari 18.3, iOS 18.3 and iPadOS 18.3, macOS Sequoia 15.3, watchOS 11.3, tvOS 18.3. Processing web content may lead to a denial-of-service.",
"id": "GHSA-48xq-vmgv-hxqw",
"modified": "2025-11-03T21:32:29Z",
"published": "2025-01-28T00:32:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-24158"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/02/msg00014.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122066"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122068"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122071"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122072"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122073"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122074"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Jan/13"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Jan/15"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Jan/18"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Jan/20"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.