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-4CX2-FC23-5WG6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-13 12:31 – Updated: 2026-05-13 16:23Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java bcpkix, bcprov, bcpkix-fips on All (API modules) allows Excessive Allocation. This vulnerability is associated with program files https://github.Com/bcgit/bc-java/blob/main/pkix/src/main/java/org/bouncycastle/pkix/jcajce/PKIXCertP... https://github.Com/bcgit/bc-java/blob/main/pkix/src/main/java/org/bouncycastle/pkix/jcajce/PKIXCertPathReviewer.java , https://github.Com/bcgit/bc-java/blob/main/prov/src/main/java/org/bouncycastle/x509/PKIXCertPathRevi... https://github.Com/bcgit/bc-java/blob/main/prov/src/main/java/org/bouncycastle/x509/PKIXCertPathReviewer.java .
This issue affects Bouncy Castle for Java: from BC 1.44 through 1.78, from BCPKIX FIPS 1.0.0 through 1.0.7, from BCPKIX FIPS 2.0.0 through 2.0.7.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-jdk15on"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.44"
},
{
"fixed": "1.79"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-jdk15to18"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.44"
},
{
"fixed": "1.79"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-jdk18on"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.44"
},
{
"fixed": "1.79"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.0.7"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-fips"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.0.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.0.7"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-fips"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.0.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-8916"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-08-13T22:52:42Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-13T10:15:27Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java bcpkix, bcprov, bcpkix-fips on All (API modules) allows Excessive Allocation. This vulnerability is associated with program files https://github.Com/bcgit/bc-java/blob/main/pkix/src/main/java/org/bouncycastle/pkix/jcajce/PKIXCertP... https://github.Com/bcgit/bc-java/blob/main/pkix/src/main/java/org/bouncycastle/pkix/jcajce/PKIXCertPathReviewer.java , https://github.Com/bcgit/bc-java/blob/main/prov/src/main/java/org/bouncycastle/x509/PKIXCertPathRevi... https://github.Com/bcgit/bc-java/blob/main/prov/src/main/java/org/bouncycastle/x509/PKIXCertPathReviewer.java .\n\nThis issue affects Bouncy Castle for Java: from BC 1.44 through 1.78, from BCPKIX FIPS 1.0.0 through 1.0.7, from BCPKIX FIPS 2.0.0 through 2.0.7.",
"id": "GHSA-4cx2-fc23-5wg6",
"modified": "2026-05-13T16:23:20Z",
"published": "2025-08-13T12:31:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-8916"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/310b30a4fbf36d13f6cc201ffa7771715641e67e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/ff444a479942d88de64004dc82c3ee32a9e9075a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-032379.html"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/wiki/CVE%E2%80%902025%E2%80%908916"
}
],
"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:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/S:P/R:U/RE:M/U:Amber",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Bouncy Castle for Java bcpkix, bcprov, bcpkix-fips on All (API modules) allows Excessive Allocation"
}
GHSA-4F84-HJMH-2HHH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-21 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-02 00:00A remote attacker with general user privilege can send a message to Teamplus Pro’s chat group that exceeds message size limit, to terminate other recipients’ Teamplus Pro chat process.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-32958"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-20T02:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A remote attacker with general user privilege can send a message to Teamplus Pro\u2019s chat group that exceeds message size limit, to terminate other recipients\u2019 Teamplus Pro chat process.",
"id": "GHSA-4f84-hjmh-2hhh",
"modified": "2022-08-02T00:00:27Z",
"published": "2022-07-21T00:00:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-32958"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.twcert.org.tw/tw/cp-132-6289-a5524-1.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-4F8M-8MGG-8VF4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-21 18:30 – Updated: 2026-01-21 18:30GeoGebra Graphing Calculator 6.0.631.0 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows attackers to crash the application by inputting an oversized buffer. Attackers can generate a payload of 8000 repeated characters to overwhelm the input field and cause the application to become unresponsive.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-47877"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-21T18:16:21Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "GeoGebra Graphing Calculator 6.0.631.0 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows attackers to crash the application by inputting an oversized buffer. Attackers can generate a payload of 8000 repeated characters to overwhelm the input field and cause the application to become unresponsive.",
"id": "GHSA-4f8m-8mgg-8vf4",
"modified": "2026-01-21T18:30:31Z",
"published": "2026-01-21T18:30:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-47877"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/49653"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.geogebra.org"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/geogebra-graphing-calculator-denial-of-service"
}
],
"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:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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-4FC2-H7JH-287C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-02 19:39 – Updated: 2026-07-02 19:39Am I affected
You are affected if:
- You run
zebradup to and includingv4.4.1. - Your node accepts inbound P2P connections (
network.listen_addris set, which is the default). - Your node's mempool is active (node is synced near the chain tip).
All default configurations are affected.
Summary
A single unauthenticated P2P peer can monopolize all 25 inbound mempool download/verification slots (MAX_INBOUND_CONCURRENCY) by advertising fake transaction IDs. While the slots are occupied, all other inbound transactions from honest peers and local RPC sendrawtransaction calls are rejected with MempoolError::FullQueue. The attacker peer is never scored for misbehavior and is not disconnected, allowing sustained denial of mempool admission.
Details
The mempool download/verification pipeline at zebrad/src/components/mempool/downloads.rs uses a single bounded pool of 25 concurrent tasks. Three architectural gaps combine to produce the vulnerability:
- No per-peer accounting: the 25 slots are shared across all peers with no cap on how many a single peer can hold.
- No overload signaling: when
FullQueueis returned, the inbound service atzebrad/src/components/inbound.rsmaps it toResponse::Nil, hiding the overload from the peer connection layer. The existinghandle_inbound_overloaddisconnection logic never fires. - No misbehavior attribution: peer identity is not carried through the
Gossiptype into the download pipeline, so verification failures cannot be attributed to the originating peer.
The attacker sends inv messages advertising fake transaction IDs. Zebra queues download tasks for each ID. The attacker stays silent; each slot is held until the TRANSACTION_DOWNLOAD_TIMEOUT (20 seconds) fires. The attacker periodically sends fresh inv waves to re-fill slots as they expire.
Two additional slot-holding techniques have been independently demonstrated: invalid-prevout transactions that park in AwaitOutput for 60 seconds, and expensive shielded proof verification with auth-variant cache bypass. All three techniques are addressed by the same per-peer accounting fix.
Patches
zebrad 4.5.0
The fix adds per-peer queue accounting to the mempool download pipeline. A single peer is limited to a fraction of MAX_INBOUND_CONCURRENCY (e.g., 5 slots out of 25). FullQueue is surfaced as an overload signal to the peer connection layer. Peer identity is plumbed through the Gossip type for misbehavior attribution.
Workarounds
There is no complete configuration-level workaround. Reducing network.peerset_initial_target_size limits the total inbound peer count but does not prevent a single peer from holding all mempool slots.
Impact
Mempool transaction admission is denied for all honest peers and local RPC clients while the attack is sustained. Block validation and chain synchronization continue normally. The attacker needs only one TCP connection and minimal bandwidth (~1 KB/s of fake inv messages). The node recovers immediately when the attacker stops. This does not affect consensus, funds, or on-disk state.
Credit
Reported by @dingledropper via a private GitHub Security Advisory submission.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.4.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "zebrad"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.5.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-52732"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-02T19:39:02Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Am I affected\n\nYou are affected if:\n\n1. You run `zebrad` up to and including `v4.4.1`.\n2. Your node accepts inbound P2P connections (`network.listen_addr` is set, which is the default).\n3. Your node\u0027s mempool is active (node is synced near the chain tip).\n\nAll default configurations are affected.\n\n### Summary\n\nA single unauthenticated P2P peer can monopolize all 25 inbound mempool download/verification slots (`MAX_INBOUND_CONCURRENCY`) by advertising fake transaction IDs. While the slots are occupied, all other inbound transactions from honest peers and local RPC `sendrawtransaction` calls are rejected with `MempoolError::FullQueue`. The attacker peer is never scored for misbehavior and is not disconnected, allowing sustained denial of mempool admission.\n\n### Details\n\nThe mempool download/verification pipeline at `zebrad/src/components/mempool/downloads.rs` uses a single bounded pool of 25 concurrent tasks. Three architectural gaps combine to produce the vulnerability:\n\n1. No per-peer accounting: the 25 slots are shared across all peers with no cap on how many a single peer can hold.\n2. No overload signaling: when `FullQueue` is returned, the inbound service at `zebrad/src/components/inbound.rs` maps it to `Response::Nil`, hiding the overload from the peer connection layer. The existing `handle_inbound_overload` disconnection logic never fires.\n3. No misbehavior attribution: peer identity is not carried through the `Gossip` type into the download pipeline, so verification failures cannot be attributed to the originating peer.\n\nThe attacker sends `inv` messages advertising fake transaction IDs. Zebra queues download tasks for each ID. The attacker stays silent; each slot is held until the `TRANSACTION_DOWNLOAD_TIMEOUT` (20 seconds) fires. The attacker periodically sends fresh `inv` waves to re-fill slots as they expire.\n\nTwo additional slot-holding techniques have been independently demonstrated: invalid-prevout transactions that park in `AwaitOutput` for 60 seconds, and expensive shielded proof verification with auth-variant cache bypass. All three techniques are addressed by the same per-peer accounting fix.\n\n### Patches\n\nzebrad 4.5.0\n\nThe fix adds per-peer queue accounting to the mempool download pipeline. A single peer is limited to a fraction of `MAX_INBOUND_CONCURRENCY` (e.g., 5 slots out of 25). `FullQueue` is surfaced as an overload signal to the peer connection layer. Peer identity is plumbed through the `Gossip` type for misbehavior attribution.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nThere is no complete configuration-level workaround. Reducing `network.peerset_initial_target_size` limits the total inbound peer count but does not prevent a single peer from holding all mempool slots.\n\n### Impact\n\nMempool transaction admission is denied for all honest peers and local RPC clients while the attack is sustained. Block validation and chain synchronization continue normally. The attacker needs only one TCP connection and minimal bandwidth (~1 KB/s of fake `inv` messages). The node recovers immediately when the attacker stops. This does not affect consensus, funds, or on-disk state.\n\n### Credit\n\nReported by `@dingledropper` via a private GitHub Security Advisory submission.",
"id": "GHSA-4fc2-h7jh-287c",
"modified": "2026-07-02T19:39:02Z",
"published": "2026-07-02T19:39:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/zebra/security/advisories/GHSA-4fc2-h7jh-287c"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/zebra"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/zebra/blob/d4cd662c716382f6397d2a730148025a1ca79fec/zebrad/src/components/mempool/downloads.rs#L82"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "zebrad has mempool transaction admission denial via single-peer inbound queue saturation"
}
GHSA-4FFF-JCR9-G646
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-05 00:00 – Updated: 2022-04-12 00:00A lack of appropriate timeouts in GitLab Pages included in GitLab CE/EE all versions prior to 14.7.7, 14.8 prior to 14.8.5, and 14.9 prior to 14.9.2 allows an attacker to cause unlimited resource consumption.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-1121"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-04-04T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A lack of appropriate timeouts in GitLab Pages included in GitLab CE/EE all versions prior to 14.7.7, 14.8 prior to 14.8.5, and 14.9 prior to 14.9.2 allows an attacker to cause unlimited resource consumption.",
"id": "GHSA-4fff-jcr9-g646",
"modified": "2022-04-12T00:00:52Z",
"published": "2022-04-05T00:00:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-1121"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/cves/-/blob/master/2022/CVE-2022-1121.json"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-pages/-/issues/684"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-4FVR-RGM6-GQMC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-15 20:10 – Updated: 2026-06-15 20:10Summary
No limit was present on the number of pipelined requests that could be queued.
Impact
An attacker may be able to use pipelined requests to use excessive amounts of memory, potentially leading to DoS.
Patch: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/dfdfa9d5aad5d21f91c79fb2ceeba0f8046cb6cf
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.14.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "aiohttp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.14.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54273"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-15T20:10:32Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nNo limit was present on the number of pipelined requests that could be queued.\n\n### Impact\n\nAn attacker may be able to use pipelined requests to use excessive amounts of memory, potentially leading to DoS.\n\n-----\n\nPatch: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/dfdfa9d5aad5d21f91c79fb2ceeba0f8046cb6cf",
"id": "GHSA-4fvr-rgm6-gqmc",
"modified": "2026-06-15T20:10:32Z",
"published": "2026-06-15T20:10:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/security/advisories/GHSA-4fvr-rgm6-gqmc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/dfdfa9d5aad5d21f91c79fb2ceeba0f8046cb6cf"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp"
}
],
"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": "aiohttp: HTTP/1 Pipelined Requests Queue Without Limit"
}
GHSA-4G42-GQRG-4633
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-14 09:30 – Updated: 2025-10-13 12:40Denial of service via out of memory (OOM) owing to no sanity limit on normal form fields in multipart forms. When a Multipart request has non-file normal form fields, Struts used to bring them into memory as Strings without checking their sizes. This could lead to an OOM if developer has set struts.multipart.maxSize to a value equal or greater than the available memory.
Upgrade to Struts 2.5.31 or 6.1.2.1 or greater
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.struts:struts2-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.5.31"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.struts:struts2-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "6.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "6.1.2.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.struts:struts-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.3.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "struts:struts"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.2.9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-34396"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-06-14T20:16:52Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-14T08:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Denial of service via out of memory (OOM) owing to no sanity limit on normal form fields in multipart forms. When a Multipart request has non-file normal form fields, Struts used to bring them into memory as Strings without checking their sizes. This could lead to an OOM if developer has set struts.multipart.maxSize to a value equal or greater than the available memory.\n\nUpgrade to Struts 2.5.31 or 6.1.2.1 or greater",
"id": "GHSA-4g42-gqrg-4633",
"modified": "2025-10-13T12:40:51Z",
"published": "2023-06-14T09:30:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-34396"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/struts/commit/2d6f1bc0a6f5ac575a56784ac6461816b67c4f21"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WW/S2-064"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/struts"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/struts/releases/tag/STRUTS_2_5_31"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/struts/releases/tag/STRUTS_6_1_2_1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20230706-0005"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/06/14/3"
}
],
"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": "Apache Struts vulnerable to memory exhaustion"
}
GHSA-4G5X-2JFC-XM98
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-07 18:10 – Updated: 2026-05-06 21:23Summary
Tlon media downloads can bypass core safety limits and exhaust disk
Current Maintainer Triage
- Status: narrow
- Normalized severity: low
- Assessment: Shipped v2026.3.28 Tlon media downloads bypassed core size/count/cleanup limits, but this is availability-only resource exhaustion in a bundled plugin path, so low.
Affected Packages / Versions
- Package:
openclaw(npm) - Latest published npm version:
2026.3.31 - Vulnerable version range:
<=2026.3.28 - Patched versions:
>= 2026.3.31 - First stable tag containing the fix:
v2026.3.31
Fix Commit(s)
2194587d70d2aef863508b945319c5a7c88b12ce— 2026-03-31T19:40:15+09:00
Release Process Note
- The fix is already present in released version
2026.3.31. - This draft looks ready for final maintainer disposition or publication, not additional code-fix work.
Thanks @AntAISecurityLab for reporting.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2026.3.28"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.3.31"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-41408"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-434",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-07T18:10:41Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-28T19:37:44Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\nTlon media downloads can bypass core safety limits and exhaust disk\n\n## Current Maintainer Triage\n- Status: narrow\n- Normalized severity: low\n- Assessment: Shipped v2026.3.28 Tlon media downloads bypassed core size/count/cleanup limits, but this is availability-only resource exhaustion in a bundled plugin path, so low.\n\n## Affected Packages / Versions\n- Package: `openclaw` (npm)\n- Latest published npm version: `2026.3.31`\n- Vulnerable version range: `\u003c=2026.3.28`\n- Patched versions: `\u003e= 2026.3.31`\n- First stable tag containing the fix: `v2026.3.31`\n\n## Fix Commit(s)\n- `2194587d70d2aef863508b945319c5a7c88b12ce` \u2014 2026-03-31T19:40:15+09:00\n\n## Release Process Note\n- The fix is already present in released version `2026.3.31`.\n- This draft looks ready for final maintainer disposition or publication, not additional code-fix work.\n\nThanks @AntAISecurityLab for reporting.",
"id": "GHSA-4g5x-2jfc-xm98",
"modified": "2026-05-06T21:23:08Z",
"published": "2026-04-07T18:10:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-4g5x-2jfc-xm98"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41408"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/2194587d70d2aef863508b945319c5a7c88b12ce"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-disk-exhaustion-via-media-download-bypass"
}
],
"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:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw: Tlon media downloads can bypass core safety limits and exhaust disk"
}
GHSA-4GM9-C9JQ-G523
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-19 18:30 – Updated: 2023-05-19 23:46Froxlor prior to 2.0.16 has a password reset page with no rate limit.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "froxlor/froxlor"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.0.16"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-2666"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-05-19T23:46:03Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-12T01:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Froxlor prior to 2.0.16 has a password reset page with no rate limit.",
"id": "GHSA-4gm9-c9jq-g523",
"modified": "2023-05-19T23:46:03Z",
"published": "2023-05-19T18:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-2666"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/froxlor/froxlor/commit/1679675aa1c29d24344dd2e091ff252accb111d6"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/froxlor/froxlor"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/0bbdc9d4-d9dc-4490-93ef-0a83b451a20f"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Froxlor vulnerable to Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling"
}
GHSA-4GQJ-V3RW-HWJG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-16 00:30 – Updated: 2026-01-16 00:30Telegram Desktop 2.9.2 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows attackers to crash the application by sending an oversized message payload. Attackers can generate a 9 million byte buffer and paste it into the messaging interface to trigger an application crash.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-47793"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-16T00:16:23Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Telegram Desktop 2.9.2 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows attackers to crash the application by sending an oversized message payload. Attackers can generate a 9 million byte buffer and paste it into the messaging interface to trigger an application crash.",
"id": "GHSA-4gqj-v3rw-hwjg",
"modified": "2026-01-16T00:30:55Z",
"published": "2026-01-16T00:30:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-47793"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://telegram.org"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/50247"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/telegram-desktop-denial-of-service-poc"
}
],
"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:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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"
}
]
}
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.