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.
3023 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-67MF-3CR5-8W23
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-12 12:30 – Updated: 2025-09-03 13:04A resource allocation vulnerability exists in Bouncy Castle for Java (by Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.) that affects all API modules. The vulnerability allows attackers to cause excessive memory allocation through unbounded resource consumption, potentially leading to denial of service. The issue is located in the ASN1ObjectIdentifier.java file in the core module.
This issue affects Bouncy Castle for Java: from BC 1.0 through 1.77, from BC-FJA 1.0.0 through 2.0.0.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk14"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.78"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk15to18"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.78"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk18on"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.78"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.bouncycastle:bctls-jdk14"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.78"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.bouncycastle:bctls-jdk15to18"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.78"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.bouncycastle:bctls-jdk18on"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.78"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.bouncycastle:bc-fips"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.0.2.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.bouncycastle:bc-fips"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.0.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"2.0.0"
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-8885"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-08-12T19:36:18Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-12T10:15:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A resource allocation vulnerability exists in Bouncy Castle for Java (by Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.) that affects all API modules. The vulnerability allows attackers to cause excessive memory allocation through unbounded resource consumption, potentially leading to denial of service. The issue is located in the ASN1ObjectIdentifier.java file in the core module.\n\nThis issue affects Bouncy Castle for Java: from BC 1.0 through 1.77, from BC-FJA 1.0.0 through 2.0.0.",
"id": "GHSA-67mf-3cr5-8w23",
"modified": "2025-09-03T13:04:19Z",
"published": "2025-08-12T12:30:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-8885"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/3790993df5d28f661a64439a8664343437ed3865"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/blob/main/core/src/main/java/org/bouncycastle/asn1/ASN1ObjectIdentifier.java"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/wiki/CVE%E2%80%902025%E2%80%908885"
}
],
"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 on All (API modules) allows Excessive Allocation"
}
GHSA-67PG-WM7F-Q7FJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-19 15:25 – Updated: 2026-02-19 20:58Impact
User control of the first argument of the addImage method results in denial of service.
If given the possibility to pass unsanitized image data or URLs to the addImage method, a user can provide a harmful GIF file that results in out of memory errors and denial of service. Harmful GIF files have large width and/or height entries in their headers, wich lead to excessive memory allocation.
Other affected methods are: html.
Example attack vector:
import { jsPDF } from "jspdf"
// malicious GIF image data with large width/height headers
const payload = ...
const doc = new jsPDF();
doc.addImage(payload, "GIF", 0, 0, 100, 100);
Patches
The vulnerability has been fixed in jsPDF 4.1.1. Upgrade to jspdf@>=4.2.0.
Workarounds
Sanitize image data or URLs before passing it to the addImage method or one of the other affected methods.
References
https://github.com/ZeroXJacks/CVEs/blob/main/2026/CVE-2026-25535.md
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "jspdf"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.2.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-25535"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-19T15:25:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-19T15:16:12Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nUser control of the first argument of the `addImage` method results in denial of service.\n\nIf given the possibility to pass unsanitized image data or URLs to the `addImage` method, a user can provide a harmful GIF file that results in out of memory errors and denial of service. Harmful GIF files have large width and/or height entries in their headers, wich lead to excessive memory allocation.\n\nOther affected methods are: `html`.\n\nExample attack vector:\n\n```js\nimport { jsPDF } from \"jspdf\" \n\n// malicious GIF image data with large width/height headers\nconst payload = ...\n\nconst doc = new jsPDF();\n\ndoc.addImage(payload, \"GIF\", 0, 0, 100, 100);\n```\n\n### Patches\n\nThe vulnerability has been fixed in jsPDF 4.1.1. Upgrade to jspdf@\u003e=4.2.0.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nSanitize image data or URLs before passing it to the addImage method or one of the other affected methods.\n### References\nhttps://github.com/ZeroXJacks/CVEs/blob/main/2026/CVE-2026-25535.md",
"id": "GHSA-67pg-wm7f-q7fj",
"modified": "2026-02-19T20:58:08Z",
"published": "2026-02-19T15:25:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/parallax/jsPDF/security/advisories/GHSA-67pg-wm7f-q7fj"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25535"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/parallax/jsPDF/commit/2e5e156e284d92c7d134bce97e6418756941d5e6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ZeroXJacks/CVEs/blob/main/2026/CVE-2026-25535.md"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/parallax/jsPDF"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/parallax/jsPDF/releases/tag/v4.2.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "jsPDF Affected by Client-Side/Server-Side Denial of Service via Malicious GIF Dimensions"
}
GHSA-67VC-2Q9C-6854
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:22 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:22An attempted excessive memory allocation was discovered in the function read_long_names in elf_begin.c in libelf in elfutils 0.174. Remote attackers could leverage this vulnerability to cause a denial-of-service via crafted elf input, which leads to an out-of-memory exception. NOTE: The maintainers believe this is not a real issue, but instead a "warning caused by ASAN because the allocation is big. By setting ASAN_OPTIONS=allocator_may_return_null=1 and running the reproducer, nothing happens."
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-7148"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-01-29T00:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An attempted excessive memory allocation was discovered in the function read_long_names in elf_begin.c in libelf in elfutils 0.174. Remote attackers could leverage this vulnerability to cause a denial-of-service via crafted elf input, which leads to an out-of-memory exception. NOTE: The maintainers believe this is not a real issue, but instead a \"warning caused by ASAN because the allocation is big. By setting ASAN_OPTIONS=allocator_may_return_null=1 and running the reproducer, nothing happens.\"",
"id": "GHSA-67vc-2q9c-6854",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:22:47Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:22:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-7148"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24085"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-67WX-R9XR-X75X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-04 19:44 – Updated: 2026-05-08 21:47Summary
User provided image and backup tarballs would be unpacked and YAML files parsed without any size restrictions. This was making it easy for an authenticated user to provide a crafted image or backup tarball that when parsed by Incus would lead to a very large YAML document being loaded into memory, potentially causing the entire server to run out of memory.
Details
It was found that getImageMetadata and backup.GetInfo call yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode() directly on the tar reader without limiting how many bytes the YAML decoder can consume. The tar entry hdr.Size is not checked before decoding.
A tar archive can be crafted in which metadata.yaml or backup/index.yaml declares a large size in the tar header, causing the YAML decoder to read and allocate proportional memory on the server. The gopkg.in/yaml.v2 library mitigates YAML alias and anchor bombs, such as “billion laughs,” through its built-in excessive-aliasing check. However, large flat YAML documents with many keys or long string values can still produce linear but amplified memory consumption of approximately 5x to 6x the input size.
A 200 MB tar entry for metadata.yaml may cause approximately 1.2 GB of heap allocations during decode, which may be sufficient to trigger an out-of-memory condition on a constrained daemon or significantly degrade service. Because the decode occurs in the daemon process, excessive garbage-collection pressure can affect concurrent operations. Appropriate API permissions are required to upload an image or backup archive.
Mitigating factors include the fact that the amplification is linear rather than exponential, at approximately 5x to 6x, and that upload bandwidth is the practical bottleneck for delivering large payloads.
Affected Files: - https://github.com/lxc/incus/blob/v6.22.0/cmd/incusd/images.go#L1456 - https://github.com/lxc/incus/blob/v6.22.0/internal/server/backup/backup_info.go#L87 - https://github.com/lxc/incus/blob/v6.22.0/internal/server/backup/backup_info.go#L115
Image metadata parsing reads YAML directly from the tar stream: Affected Code:
if hdr.Name == "metadata.yaml" || hdr.Name == "./metadata.yaml" {
err = yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode(&result)
Backup info parsing does the same:
Affected Code:
if hdr.Name == backupIndexPath {
err = yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode(&result)
if result.Config == nil && hdr.Name == "backup/container/backup.yaml" {
err = yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode(&result.Config)
This was confirmed as follows:
Command:
go test ./test/fuzz -run='TestUnboundedYAMLMetadataDecode' -count=1 -v
Output:
=== RUN TestUnboundedYAMLMetadataDecode
image_metadata_poc_test.go:80: metadata.yaml size: 10.2 MB
image_metadata_poc_test.go:113: metadata.yaml hdr.Size = 10688940 bytes (10.2 MB) -- no size
check exists in getImageMetadata before yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode()
image_metadata_poc_test.go:124: decoded 50000 properties from 10.2 MB metadata.yaml
image_metadata_poc_test.go:125: yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode() accepted 10.2 MB metadata.yaml
with 50000 properties -- no hdr.Size check or io.LimitReader in images.go:1457 or
backup_info.go:88
--- FAIL: TestUnboundedYAMLMetadataDecode (0.11s)
FAIL
It is recommended to add a size check on hdr.Size before YAML decoding and to wrap the tar reader in io.LimitReader.
Proposed Fix:
const maxMetadataSize = 1 << 20 // 1 MB
if hdr.Size > maxMetadataSize {
return nil, fmt.Errorf("metadata entry too large: %d bytes", hdr.Size)
}
err = yaml.NewDecoder(io.LimitReader(tr, maxMetadataSize)).Decode(&result)
A patch is available at https://github.com/lxc/incus/releases/tag/v7.0.0.
Credit
This issue was discovered and reported by the team at 7asecurity (https://7asecurity.com/)
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/lxc/incus/v6/cmd/incusd"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "6.23.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-41648"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-04T19:44:24Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-07T14:16:03Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\nUser provided image and backup tarballs would be unpacked and YAML files parsed without any size restrictions. This was making it easy for an authenticated user to provide a crafted image or backup tarball that when parsed by Incus would lead to a very large YAML document being loaded into memory, potentially causing the entire server to run out of memory.\n\n### Details\nIt was found that getImageMetadata and backup.GetInfo call yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode() directly on the tar reader without limiting how many bytes the YAML decoder can consume. The tar entry hdr.Size is not checked before decoding.\n\nA tar archive can be crafted in which metadata.yaml or backup/index.yaml declares a large size in the tar header, causing the YAML decoder to read and allocate proportional memory on the server. The gopkg.in/yaml.v2 library mitigates YAML alias and anchor bombs, such as \u201cbillion laughs,\u201d through its built-in excessive-aliasing check. However, large flat YAML documents with many keys or long string values can still produce linear but amplified memory consumption of approximately 5x to 6x the input size.\n\nA 200 MB tar entry for metadata.yaml may cause approximately 1.2 GB of heap allocations during decode, which may be sufficient to trigger an out-of-memory condition on a constrained daemon or significantly degrade service. Because the decode occurs in the daemon process, excessive garbage-collection pressure can affect concurrent operations. Appropriate API permissions are required to upload an image or backup archive.\n\nMitigating factors include the fact that the amplification is linear rather than exponential, at approximately 5x to 6x, and that upload bandwidth is the practical bottleneck for delivering large payloads.\n\nAffected Files:\n - https://github.com/lxc/incus/blob/v6.22.0/cmd/incusd/images.go#L1456\n - https://github.com/lxc/incus/blob/v6.22.0/internal/server/backup/backup_info.go#L87\n - https://github.com/lxc/incus/blob/v6.22.0/internal/server/backup/backup_info.go#L115\n\nImage metadata parsing reads YAML directly from the tar stream:\nAffected Code:\n```\nif hdr.Name == \"metadata.yaml\" || hdr.Name == \"./metadata.yaml\" {\n err = yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode(\u0026result)\n```\n\nBackup info parsing does the same:\n\nAffected Code:\n```\nif hdr.Name == backupIndexPath {\n err = yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode(\u0026result)\n\nif result.Config == nil \u0026\u0026 hdr.Name == \"backup/container/backup.yaml\" {\n err = yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode(\u0026result.Config)\n```\n\nThis was confirmed as follows:\n\nCommand:\n```\ngo test ./test/fuzz -run=\u0027TestUnboundedYAMLMetadataDecode\u0027 -count=1 -v\n```\n\nOutput:\n```\n=== RUN TestUnboundedYAMLMetadataDecode\n image_metadata_poc_test.go:80: metadata.yaml size: 10.2 MB\n image_metadata_poc_test.go:113: metadata.yaml hdr.Size = 10688940 bytes (10.2 MB) -- no size\n check exists in getImageMetadata before yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode()\n image_metadata_poc_test.go:124: decoded 50000 properties from 10.2 MB metadata.yaml\n image_metadata_poc_test.go:125: yaml.NewDecoder(tr).Decode() accepted 10.2 MB metadata.yaml\n with 50000 properties -- no hdr.Size check or io.LimitReader in images.go:1457 or\n backup_info.go:88\n--- FAIL: TestUnboundedYAMLMetadataDecode (0.11s)\nFAIL\n```\n\nIt is recommended to add a size check on hdr.Size before YAML decoding and to wrap the tar reader in io.LimitReader.\n\nProposed Fix:\n```\nconst maxMetadataSize = 1 \u003c\u003c 20 // 1 MB\n\nif hdr.Size \u003e maxMetadataSize {\n return nil, fmt.Errorf(\"metadata entry too large: %d bytes\", hdr.Size)\n}\n\nerr = yaml.NewDecoder(io.LimitReader(tr, maxMetadataSize)).Decode(\u0026result)\n```\n\nA patch is available at https://github.com/lxc/incus/releases/tag/v7.0.0.\n\n### Credit\nThis issue was discovered and reported by the team at 7asecurity (https://7asecurity.com/)",
"id": "GHSA-67wx-r9xr-x75x",
"modified": "2026-05-08T21:47:16Z",
"published": "2026-05-04T19:44:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/lxc/incus/security/advisories/GHSA-67wx-r9xr-x75x"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41648"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/lxc/incus"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/lxc/incus/releases/tag/v7.0.0"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Incus has Unbounded YAML Metadata Decode via Parsing"
}
GHSA-6876-43RC-GJMQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-02 09:30 – Updated: 2026-02-03 00:30In Modem, there is a possible system crash due to an uncaught exception. This could lead to remote denial of service, if a UE has connected to a rogue base station controlled by the attacker, with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: MOLY01726634; Issue ID: MSV-5728.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-20406"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-754",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-02T09:15:55Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In Modem, there is a possible system crash due to an uncaught exception. This could lead to remote denial of service, if a UE has connected to a rogue base station controlled by the attacker, with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: MOLY01726634; Issue ID: MSV-5728.",
"id": "GHSA-6876-43rc-gjmq",
"modified": "2026-02-03T00:30:18Z",
"published": "2026-02-02T09:30:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-20406"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://corp.mediatek.com/product-security-bulletin/February-2026"
}
],
"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-688V-85CH-V3V6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-27 18:30 – Updated: 2025-09-27 18:30Denial of Service issue in GraphQL endpoints in Gitlab EE/CE affecting all versions from 11.10 prior to 18.2.7, 18.3 prior to 18.3.3, and 18.4 prior to 18.4.1 allows unauthenticated users to potentially bypass query complexity limits leading to resource exhaustion and service disruption.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-8014"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-27T17:15:33Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Denial of Service issue in GraphQL endpoints in Gitlab EE/CE affecting all versions from 11.10 prior to 18.2.7, 18.3 prior to 18.3.3, and 18.4 prior to 18.4.1 allows unauthenticated users to potentially bypass query complexity limits leading to resource exhaustion and service disruption.",
"id": "GHSA-688v-85ch-v3v6",
"modified": "2025-09-27T18:30:49Z",
"published": "2025-09-27T18:30:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-8014"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/3228134"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/556838"
}
],
"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-689C-XQ7X-XJWF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-24 09:30 – Updated: 2025-04-24 16:09Mattermost versions 10.4.x <= 10.4.2, 10.5.x <= 10.5.0, 9.11.x <= 9.11.10 fail to validate the uniqueness and quantity of task actions within the UpdateRunTaskActions GraphQL operation, which allows an attacker to create task items containing an excessive number of actions triggered by specific posts, overloading the server and leading to a denial-of-service (DoS) condition.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "8.0.0-20250218121836-2b5275d87136"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c 2.1.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/mattermost/mattermost-plugin-playbooks"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.0.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c 10.4.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "10.4.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c 10.5.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "10.5.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c 9.11.11"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.11.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/mattermost/mattermost-plugin-playbooks"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.41.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-35965"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-04-24T16:09:18Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-24T07:15:31Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Mattermost versions 10.4.x \u003c= 10.4.2, 10.5.x \u003c= 10.5.0, 9.11.x \u003c= 9.11.10 fail to validate the uniqueness and quantity of task actions within the UpdateRunTaskActions GraphQL operation, which allows an attacker to create task items containing an excessive number of actions triggered by specific posts, overloading the server and leading to a denial-of-service (DoS) condition.",
"id": "GHSA-689c-xq7x-xjwf",
"modified": "2025-04-24T16:09:19Z",
"published": "2025-04-24T09:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-35965"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost-plugin-playbooks/commit/bf2633dad09f5768ce2bea4b7c5ffb74050052a8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/commit/2b5275d87136f07e016c8eca09a2f004b31afc8a"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost-plugin-playbooks"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://mattermost.com/security-updates"
}
],
"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": "Mattermost Playbooks fails to validate the uniqueness and quantity of task actions"
}
GHSA-689V-6XWF-5JF3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-18 22:34 – Updated: 2026-02-27 20:38Impact
An attacker can cause high memory usage by sending a specially-crafted p2p message. More details to be released later.
Patches
The issue is resolved in the v1.17.0 release.
Credit
This issue was reported to the Ethereum Foundation Bug Bounty Program by @revofusion
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.17.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-26313"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-18T22:34:49Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-19T21:18:31Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nAn attacker can cause high memory usage by sending a specially-crafted p2p message.\nMore details to be released later.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe issue is resolved in the v1.17.0 release. \n\n### Credit\n\nThis issue was reported to the Ethereum Foundation Bug Bounty Program by @revofusion",
"id": "GHSA-689v-6xwf-5jf3",
"modified": "2026-02-27T20:38:21Z",
"published": "2026-02-18T22:34:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/security/advisories/GHSA-689v-6xwf-5jf3"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-26313"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/releases/tag/v1.17.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2026-4508"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Go Ethereum affected by DoS via malicious p2p message"
}
GHSA-68MG-2P5R-X33H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-03 18:30 – Updated: 2025-03-17 18:31In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
RDMA/qedr: Fix qedr_create_user_qp error flow
Avoid the following warning by making sure to free the allocated resources in case that qedr_init_user_queue() fail.
-----------[ cut here ]----------- WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 143192 at drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c:874 uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw+0xcf/0xf0 [ib_uverbs] Modules linked in: tls target_core_user uio target_core_pscsi target_core_file target_core_iblock ib_srpt ib_srp scsi_transport_srp nfsd nfs_acl rpcsec_gss_krb5 auth_rpcgss nfsv4 dns_resolver nfs lockd grace fscache netfs 8021q garp mrp stp llc ext4 mbcache jbd2 opa_vnic ib_umad ib_ipoib sunrpc rdma_ucm ib_isert iscsi_target_mod target_core_mod ib_iser libiscsi scsi_transport_iscsi rdma_cm iw_cm ib_cm hfi1 intel_rapl_msr intel_rapl_common mgag200 qedr sb_edac drm_shmem_helper rdmavt x86_pkg_temp_thermal drm_kms_helper intel_powerclamp ib_uverbs coretemp i2c_algo_bit kvm_intel dell_wmi_descriptor ipmi_ssif sparse_keymap kvm ib_core rfkill syscopyarea sysfillrect video sysimgblt irqbypass ipmi_si ipmi_devintf fb_sys_fops rapl iTCO_wdt mxm_wmi iTCO_vendor_support intel_cstate pcspkr dcdbas intel_uncore ipmi_msghandler lpc_ich acpi_power_meter mei_me mei fuse drm xfs libcrc32c qede sd_mod ahci libahci t10_pi sg crct10dif_pclmul crc32_pclmul crc32c_intel qed libata tg3 ghash_clmulni_intel megaraid_sas crc8 wmi [last unloaded: ib_srpt] CPU: 0 PID: 143192 Comm: fi_rdm_tagged_p Kdump: loaded Not tainted 5.14.0-408.el9.x86_64 #1 Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R430/03XKDV, BIOS 2.14.0 01/25/2022 RIP: 0010:uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw+0xcf/0xf0 [ib_uverbs] Code: 5d 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e e9 0f 26 1b dd 48 89 df e8 67 6a ff ff 49 8b 86 10 01 00 00 48 85 c0 74 9c 4c 89 e7 e8 83 c0 cb dd eb 92 <0f> 0b eb be 0f 0b be 04 00 00 00 48 89 df e8 8e f5 ff ff e9 6d ff RSP: 0018:ffffb7c6cadfbc60 EFLAGS: 00010286 RAX: ffff8f0889ee3f60 RBX: ffff8f088c1a5200 RCX: 00000000802a0016 RDX: 00000000802a0017 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: ffff8f0880042600 RBP: 0000000000000001 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: ffff8f11fffd5000 R11: 0000000000039000 R12: ffff8f0d5b36cd80 R13: ffff8f088c1a5250 R14: ffff8f1206d91000 R15: 0000000000000000 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8f11d7c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 0000147069200e20 CR3: 00000001c7210002 CR4: 00000000001706f0 Call Trace: ? show_trace_log_lvl+0x1c4/0x2df ? show_trace_log_lvl+0x1c4/0x2df ? ib_uverbs_close+0x1f/0xb0 [ib_uverbs] ? uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw+0xcf/0xf0 [ib_uverbs] ? __warn+0x81/0x110 ? uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw+0xcf/0xf0 [ib_uverbs] ? report_bug+0x10a/0x140 ? handle_bug+0x3c/0x70 ? exc_invalid_op+0x14/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20 ? uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw+0xcf/0xf0 [ib_uverbs] ib_uverbs_close+0x1f/0xb0 [ib_uverbs] __fput+0x94/0x250 task_work_run+0x5c/0x90 do_exit+0x270/0x4a0 do_group_exit+0x2d/0x90 get_signal+0x87c/0x8c0 arch_do_signal_or_restart+0x25/0x100 ? ib_uverbs_ioctl+0xc2/0x110 [ib_uverbs] exit_to_user_mode_loop+0x9c/0x130 exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0xb6/0x100 syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x12/0x40 do_syscall_64+0x69/0x90 ? syscall_exit_work+0x103/0x130 ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x22/0x40 ? do_syscall_64+0x69/0x90 ? syscall_exit_work+0x103/0x130 ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x22/0x40 ? do_syscall_64+0x69/0x90 ? do_syscall_64+0x69/0x90 ? common_interrupt+0x43/0xa0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc RIP: 0033:0x1470abe3ec6b Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at RIP 0x1470abe3ec41. RSP: 002b:00007fff13ce9108 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010 RAX: fffffffffffffffc RBX: 00007fff13ce9218 RCX: 00001470abe3ec6b RDX: 00007fff13ce9200 RSI: 00000000c0181b01 RDI: 0000000000000004 RBP: 00007fff13ce91e0 R08: 0000558d9655da10 R09: 0000558d9655dd00 R10: 00007fff13ce95c0 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fff13ce9358 R13: 0000000000000013 R14: 0000558d9655db50 R15: 00007fff13ce9470 --[ end trace 888a9b92e04c5c97 ]--
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-26743"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-03T17:15:51Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nRDMA/qedr: Fix qedr_create_user_qp error flow\n\nAvoid the following warning by making sure to free the allocated\nresources in case that qedr_init_user_queue() fail.\n\n-----------[ cut here ]-----------\nWARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 143192 at drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c:874 uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw+0xcf/0xf0 [ib_uverbs]\nModules linked in: tls target_core_user uio target_core_pscsi target_core_file target_core_iblock ib_srpt ib_srp scsi_transport_srp nfsd nfs_acl rpcsec_gss_krb5 auth_rpcgss nfsv4 dns_resolver nfs lockd grace fscache netfs 8021q garp mrp stp llc ext4 mbcache jbd2 opa_vnic ib_umad ib_ipoib sunrpc rdma_ucm ib_isert iscsi_target_mod target_core_mod ib_iser libiscsi scsi_transport_iscsi rdma_cm iw_cm ib_cm hfi1 intel_rapl_msr intel_rapl_common mgag200 qedr sb_edac drm_shmem_helper rdmavt x86_pkg_temp_thermal drm_kms_helper intel_powerclamp ib_uverbs coretemp i2c_algo_bit kvm_intel dell_wmi_descriptor ipmi_ssif sparse_keymap kvm ib_core rfkill syscopyarea sysfillrect video sysimgblt irqbypass ipmi_si ipmi_devintf fb_sys_fops rapl iTCO_wdt mxm_wmi iTCO_vendor_support intel_cstate pcspkr dcdbas intel_uncore ipmi_msghandler lpc_ich acpi_power_meter mei_me mei fuse drm xfs libcrc32c qede sd_mod ahci libahci t10_pi sg crct10dif_pclmul crc32_pclmul crc32c_intel qed libata tg3\nghash_clmulni_intel megaraid_sas crc8 wmi [last unloaded: ib_srpt]\nCPU: 0 PID: 143192 Comm: fi_rdm_tagged_p Kdump: loaded Not tainted 5.14.0-408.el9.x86_64 #1\nHardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R430/03XKDV, BIOS 2.14.0 01/25/2022\nRIP: 0010:uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw+0xcf/0xf0 [ib_uverbs]\nCode: 5d 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e e9 0f 26 1b dd 48 89 df e8 67 6a ff ff 49 8b 86 10 01 00 00 48 85 c0 74 9c 4c 89 e7 e8 83 c0 cb dd eb 92 \u003c0f\u003e 0b eb be 0f 0b be 04 00 00 00 48 89 df e8 8e f5 ff ff e9 6d ff\nRSP: 0018:ffffb7c6cadfbc60 EFLAGS: 00010286\nRAX: ffff8f0889ee3f60 RBX: ffff8f088c1a5200 RCX: 00000000802a0016\nRDX: 00000000802a0017 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: ffff8f0880042600\nRBP: 0000000000000001 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000\nR10: ffff8f11fffd5000 R11: 0000000000039000 R12: ffff8f0d5b36cd80\nR13: ffff8f088c1a5250 R14: ffff8f1206d91000 R15: 0000000000000000\nFS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8f11d7c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000\nCS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033\nCR2: 0000147069200e20 CR3: 00000001c7210002 CR4: 00000000001706f0\nCall Trace:\n\u003cTASK\u003e\n? show_trace_log_lvl+0x1c4/0x2df\n? show_trace_log_lvl+0x1c4/0x2df\n? ib_uverbs_close+0x1f/0xb0 [ib_uverbs]\n? uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw+0xcf/0xf0 [ib_uverbs]\n? __warn+0x81/0x110\n? uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw+0xcf/0xf0 [ib_uverbs]\n? report_bug+0x10a/0x140\n? handle_bug+0x3c/0x70\n? exc_invalid_op+0x14/0x70\n? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20\n? uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw+0xcf/0xf0 [ib_uverbs]\nib_uverbs_close+0x1f/0xb0 [ib_uverbs]\n__fput+0x94/0x250\ntask_work_run+0x5c/0x90\ndo_exit+0x270/0x4a0\ndo_group_exit+0x2d/0x90\nget_signal+0x87c/0x8c0\narch_do_signal_or_restart+0x25/0x100\n? ib_uverbs_ioctl+0xc2/0x110 [ib_uverbs]\nexit_to_user_mode_loop+0x9c/0x130\nexit_to_user_mode_prepare+0xb6/0x100\nsyscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x12/0x40\ndo_syscall_64+0x69/0x90\n? syscall_exit_work+0x103/0x130\n? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x22/0x40\n? do_syscall_64+0x69/0x90\n? syscall_exit_work+0x103/0x130\n? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x22/0x40\n? do_syscall_64+0x69/0x90\n? do_syscall_64+0x69/0x90\n? common_interrupt+0x43/0xa0\nentry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc\nRIP: 0033:0x1470abe3ec6b\nCode: Unable to access opcode bytes at RIP 0x1470abe3ec41.\nRSP: 002b:00007fff13ce9108 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010\nRAX: fffffffffffffffc RBX: 00007fff13ce9218 RCX: 00001470abe3ec6b\nRDX: 00007fff13ce9200 RSI: 00000000c0181b01 RDI: 0000000000000004\nRBP: 00007fff13ce91e0 R08: 0000558d9655da10 R09: 0000558d9655dd00\nR10: 00007fff13ce95c0 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fff13ce9358\nR13: 0000000000000013 R14: 0000558d9655db50 R15: 00007fff13ce9470\n\u003c/TASK\u003e\n--[ end trace 888a9b92e04c5c97 ]--",
"id": "GHSA-68mg-2p5r-x33h",
"modified": "2025-03-17T18:31:41Z",
"published": "2024-04-03T18:30:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-26743"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/135e5465fefa463c5ec93c4eede48b9fedac894a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5639414a52a29336ffa1ede80a67c6d927acbc5a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5ba4e6d5863c53e937f49932dee0ecb004c65928"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7f31a244c753aacf40b71d01f03ca6742f81bbbc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/95175dda017cd4982cd47960536fa1de003d3298"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/bab8875c06ebda5e01c5c4cab30022aed85c14e6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2024/06/msg00017.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"
}
]
}
GHSA-697W-32M5-F3VQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-03 21:31 – Updated: 2025-12-03 21:31An issue in HCL Technologies Limited HCLTech GRAGON before v.7.6.0 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via APIs do not enforcing limits on the number or size of requests
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-63402"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-03T19:15:57Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue in HCL Technologies Limited HCLTech GRAGON before v.7.6.0 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via APIs do not enforcing limits on the number or size of requests",
"id": "GHSA-697w-32m5-f3vq",
"modified": "2025-12-03T21:31:04Z",
"published": "2025-12-03T21:31:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-63402"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://excalibur-hcl.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#U0000000YO14/a/Pf000003dyVd/ckzaFpdm68dwd1nWqgtLfXHp3Pim_YwLUI4WcRB__Ng"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://hcl.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://hcltech.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:L",
"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.