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-6JP5-GRGH-JW42
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-04 20:47 – Updated: 2026-02-04 20:47Impact
VTPM server listens on port 8877, exposing limited TPM functionality. The server reads 4 bytes as a uint32 size header, then allocates that amount on the stack for incoming data. This allows Denial of Service attacks against the vTPM service.
An workload (a container or VM) running on EVE-OS can use this to generate a DOS against the vTPM service.
Patches
Fixed in 9.4.3-lts and 10.1.0
Workarounds
None
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/lf-edge/eve"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.0-20230519072751-977f42b07fa9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-43632"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770",
"CWE-789"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-04T20:47:37Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nVTPM server listens on port 8877, exposing limited TPM functionality. The server reads 4 bytes as a uint32 size header, then allocates that amount on the stack for incoming data. This allows Denial of Service attacks against the vTPM service.\n\nAn workload (a container or VM) running on EVE-OS can use this to generate a DOS against the vTPM service.\n\n### Patches\n\nFixed in 9.4.3-lts and 10.1.0\n\n### Workarounds\n\nNone",
"id": "GHSA-6jp5-grgh-jw42",
"modified": "2026-02-04T20:47:37Z",
"published": "2026-02-04T20:47:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/security/advisories/GHSA-6jp5-grgh-jw42"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-43632"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://asrg.io/security-advisories/cve-2023-43632"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://asrg.io/security-advisories/freely-allocate-buffer-on-the-stack-with-data-from-socket"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/lf-edge/eve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "EVE Freely Allocates Buffer on The Stack With Data From Socket"
}
GHSA-6M8W-JC87-6CR7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-01 17:02 – Updated: 2025-05-05 22:02Impact
When run as a server, OPA exposes an HTTP Data API for reading and writing documents. Requesting a virtual document through the Data API entails policy evaluation, where a Rego query containing a single data document reference is constructed from the requested path. This query is then used for policy evaluation.
A HTTP request path can be crafted in a way that injects Rego code into the constructed query. The evaluation result cannot be made to return any other data than what is generated by the requested path, but this path can be misdirected, and the injected Rego code can be crafted to make the query succeed or fail; opening up for oracle attacks or, given the right circumstances, erroneous policy decision results. Furthermore, the injected code can be crafted to be computationally expensive, resulting in a Denial Of Service (DoS) attack.
Users are only impacted if all of the following apply:
- OPA is deployed as a standalone server (rather than being used as a Go library)
- The OPA server is exposed outside of the local host in an untrusted environment.
- The configured authorization policy does not do exact matching of the
input.pathattribute when deciding if the request should be allowed.
or, if all of the following apply:
- OPA is deployed as a standalone server.
- The service connecting to OPA allows 3rd parties to insert unsanitised text into the path of the HTTP request to OPA’s Data API.
Note: With no Authorization Policy configured for restricting API access (the default configuration), the RESTful Data API provides access for managing Rego policies; and the RESTful Query API facilitates advanced queries. Full access to these APIs provides both simpler, and broader access than what the security issue describes here can facilitate. As such, OPA servers exposed to a network are not considered affected by the attack described here if they are knowingly not restricting access through an Authorization Policy.
Patches
Fixed in OPA v1.4.0.
Workarounds
Don’t publicly expose OPA’s RESTful APIs
Unless necessary for production reasons, network access to OPA’s RESTful APIs should be limited to localhost and/or trusted networks.
Since OPA v1.0, unless otherwise configured, the server listener defaults to localhost.
Enable Authentication to Only Allow Access to Trusted Clients
A configured authentication scheme is a requirement when OPA is exposed in an untrusted environment. While requiring authentication alone doesn’t mitigate this attack, it effectively reduces the scope from untrusted clients to trusted clients.
Perform Path Validation Using OPA’s Authorization Policy Functionality
OPA can be configured to use an Authorization Policy to validate all incoming requests. By authoring the Authorization Policy to only accept paths corresponding to expected Rego package references, this attack can be fully mitigated.
The HTTP path in a Data API request is of the format /v1/data/{path:.+} (/v0/data/{path:.+}, for the v0 Data API), where data/{path:.+} directly corresponds to a reference to a virtual document, and a prefix of {path:.+} corresponds to a Rego package declaration.
E.g. the HTTP path v1/data/do/re/mi corresponds to the data reference data.do.re.mi, where do.re is the package and mi is the rule in the following Rego module:
package do.re
mi if {
...
}
Unless otherwise configured, OPA will use the rule at data.system.authz.allow as Authorization Policy. Authorization is enabled by starting OPA with the --authorization=basic flag, and the Authorization policy must be made available to the OPA runtime either through a bundle (via the --bundle flag or through discovery) or as an individual module via the command-line.
A trivial Authorization Policy example:
package system.authz
allowed_paths := [
["v1", "data", "policy1", "allow"],
["v1", "data", "policy2", "allow"],
...
]
allow if {
input.path in allowed_paths
}
Note: configuring an Authorization Policy in OPA isn't the only way to protect against malicious request paths. Path validation and sanitisation can also be performed by connecting clients and 3rd party intermediaries, such as API gateways, reverse proxies, etc.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/v1/server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.4.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.4.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/open-policy-agent/opa"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.4.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-46569"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770",
"CWE-78",
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-05-01T17:02:58Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-01T20:15:37Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nWhen run as a server, OPA exposes an HTTP[ Data API](https://www.openpolicyagent.org/docs/latest/rest-api/#data-api) for reading and writing documents. Requesting a virtual document through the Data API entails policy evaluation, where a Rego query containing a single data document [reference](https://www.openpolicyagent.org/docs/latest/policy-language/#references) is constructed from the requested path. This query is then used for policy evaluation.\n\nA HTTP request path can be crafted in a way that injects Rego code into the constructed query. The evaluation result cannot be made to return any other data than what is generated by the requested path, but this path can be misdirected, and the injected Rego code can be crafted to make the query succeed or fail; opening up for oracle attacks or, given the right circumstances, erroneous policy decision results. Furthermore, the injected code can be crafted to be computationally expensive, resulting in a Denial Of Service (DoS) attack.\n\n**Users are only impacted if all of the following apply:**\n\n* OPA is deployed as a standalone server (rather than being used as a Go library)\n* The OPA server is exposed outside of the local host in an untrusted environment.\n* The configured [authorization policy](https://www.openpolicyagent.org/docs/latest/security/#authentication-and-authorization) does not do exact matching of the `input.path` attribute when deciding if the request should be allowed.\n\n**or, if all of the following apply:**\n\n* OPA is deployed as a standalone server.\n* The service connecting to OPA allows 3rd parties to insert unsanitised text into the path of the HTTP request to OPA\u2019s Data API.\n\n**Note:** With **no** Authorization Policy configured for restricting API access (the default configuration), the RESTful Data API provides access for managing Rego policies; and the RESTful Query API facilitates advanced queries. Full access to these APIs provides both simpler, and broader access than what the security issue describes here can facilitate. As such, OPA servers exposed to a network are **not** considered affected by the attack described here if they are knowingly not restricting access through an Authorization Policy.\n\n### Patches\n\nFixed in OPA v1.4.0.\n\n### Workarounds\n\n#### Don\u2019t publicly expose OPA\u2019s RESTful APIs ####\n\nUnless necessary for production reasons, network access to OPA\u2019s RESTful APIs should be limited to `localhost` and/or trusted networks. \nSince OPA v1.0, unless otherwise configured, the server listener defaults to `localhost`.\n\n#### Enable Authentication to Only Allow Access to Trusted Clients ####\n\nA configured [authentication](https://www.openpolicyagent.org/docs/latest/security/#authentication-and-authorization) scheme is a requirement when OPA is exposed in an untrusted environment. While requiring authentication alone doesn\u2019t mitigate this attack, it effectively reduces the scope from untrusted clients to trusted clients.\n\n#### Perform Path Validation Using OPA\u2019s Authorization Policy Functionality ####\n\nOPA can be configured to use an [Authorization Policy](https://www.openpolicyagent.org/docs/latest/security/#authentication-and-authorization) to validate all incoming requests.\nBy authoring the Authorization Policy to only accept paths corresponding to expected Rego package references, this attack can be fully mitigated.\n\nThe HTTP path in a Data API request is of the format `/v1/data/{path:.+}` (`/v0/data/{path:.+}`, for the v0 Data API), where `data/{path:.+}` directly corresponds to a reference to a virtual document, and a prefix of `{path:.+}` corresponds to a Rego `package` declaration. \nE.g. the HTTP path `v1/data/do/re/mi` corresponds to the data reference `data.do.re.mi`, where `do.re` is the package and `mi` is the rule in the following Rego module:\n\n```rego\npackage do.re\n\nmi if {\n\t...\n}\n```\n\nUnless otherwise [configured](https://www.openpolicyagent.org/docs/latest/configuration/#miscellaneous), OPA will use the rule at `data.system.authz.allow` as Authorization Policy. Authorization is enabled by starting OPA with the `--authorization=basic` flag, and the Authorization policy must be made available to the OPA runtime either through a bundle (via the `--bundle` flag or through [discovery](https://www.openpolicyagent.org/docs/latest/management-discovery/)) or as an individual module via the command-line.\n\nA trivial Authorization Policy example:\n\n```rego\npackage system.authz\n\nallowed_paths := [\n\t[\"v1\", \"data\", \"policy1\", \"allow\"],\n\t[\"v1\", \"data\", \"policy2\", \"allow\"],\n\t...\n]\n\nallow if {\n\tinput.path in allowed_paths\n}\n```\n\n**Note:** configuring an Authorization Policy in OPA isn\u0027t the only way to protect against malicious request paths. Path validation and sanitisation can also be performed by connecting clients and 3rd party intermediaries, such as API gateways, reverse proxies, etc.",
"id": "GHSA-6m8w-jc87-6cr7",
"modified": "2025-05-05T22:02:31Z",
"published": "2025-05-01T17:02:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/security/advisories/GHSA-6m8w-jc87-6cr7"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-46569"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/commit/ad2063247a14711882f18c387a511fc8094aa79c"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2025-3660"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OPA server Data API HTTP path injection of Rego"
}
GHSA-6MJQ-H674-J845
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-20 16:33 – Updated: 2024-06-24 21:24Summary
The SniHandler can allocate up to 16MB of heap for each channel during the TLS handshake. When the handler or the channel does not have an idle timeout, it can be used to make a TCP server using the SniHandler to allocate 16MB of heap.
Details
The SniHandler class is a handler that waits for the TLS handshake to configure a SslHandler according to the indicated server name by the ClientHello record. For this matter it allocates a ByteBuf using the value defined in the ClientHello record.
Normally the value of the packet should be smaller than the handshake packet but there are not checks done here and the way the code is written, it is possible to craft a packet that makes the SslClientHelloHandler
1/ allocate a 16MB ByteBuf
2/ not fail decode method in buffer
3/ get out of the loop without an exception
The combination of this without the use of a timeout makes easy to connect to a TCP server and allocate 16MB of heap memory per connection.
Impact
If the user has no idle timeout handler configured it might be possible for a remote peer to send a client hello packet which lead the server to buffer up to 16MB of data per connection. This could lead to a OutOfMemoryError and so result in a DDOS.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.netty:netty-handler"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.94.Final"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-34462"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-06-20T16:33:22Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-22T23:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\nThe `SniHandler` can allocate up to 16MB of heap for each channel during the TLS handshake. When the handler or the channel does not have an idle timeout, it can be used to make a TCP server using the `SniHandler` to allocate 16MB of heap.\n\n### Details\nThe `SniHandler` class is a handler that waits for the TLS handshake to configure a `SslHandler` according to the indicated server name by the `ClientHello` record. For this matter it allocates a `ByteBuf` using the value defined in the `ClientHello` record. \n\nNormally the value of the packet should be smaller than the handshake packet but there are not checks done here and the way the code is written, it is possible to craft a packet that makes the `SslClientHelloHandler`\n\n1/ allocate a 16MB `ByteBuf`\n2/ not fail `decode` method `in` buffer\n3/ get out of the loop without an exception\n\nThe combination of this without the use of a timeout makes easy to connect to a TCP server and allocate 16MB of heap memory per connection.\n\n### Impact\nIf the user has no idle timeout handler configured it might be possible for a remote peer to send a client hello packet which lead the server to buffer up to 16MB of data per connection. This could lead to a OutOfMemoryError and so result in a DDOS.",
"id": "GHSA-6mjq-h674-j845",
"modified": "2024-06-24T21:24:21Z",
"published": "2023-06-20T16:33:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories/GHSA-6mjq-h674-j845"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-34462"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/netty/netty/commit/535da17e45201ae4278c0479e6162bb4127d4c32"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/netty/netty"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20230803-0001"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240621-0007"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2023/dsa-5558"
}
],
"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": "netty-handler SniHandler 16MB allocation"
}
GHSA-6MJW-GPQR-2788
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-14 15:32 – Updated: 2024-05-14 15:32An issue has been discovered in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions starting from 15.11 prior to 16.9.7, starting from 16.10 prior to 16.10.5, and starting from 16.11 prior to 16.11.2. The pins endpoint is susceptible to DoS through a crafted request.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-2454"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-14T15:19:23Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue has been discovered in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions starting from 15.11 prior to 16.9.7, starting from 16.10 prior to 16.10.5, and starting from 16.11 prior to 16.11.2. The pins endpoint is susceptible to DoS through a crafted request.",
"id": "GHSA-6mjw-gpqr-2788",
"modified": "2024-05-14T15:32:54Z",
"published": "2024-05-14T15:32:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-2454"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/2408226"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/450405"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-6MM9-JJJF-PCJ3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-07 18:31 – Updated: 2024-11-08 18:30An issue in Espressif Esp idf v5.3.0 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted data channel packet.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-51428"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-07T18:15:17Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue in Espressif Esp idf v5.3.0 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted data channel packet.",
"id": "GHSA-6mm9-jjjf-pcj3",
"modified": "2024-11-08T18:30:49Z",
"published": "2024-11-07T18:31:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-51428"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitee.com/guozhi123456/vulnerability-Report/blob/master/Esp/Accept_Invaild_Address.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/espressif/esp-idf"
}
],
"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-6MQ8-RVHQ-8WGG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-05 22:58 – Updated: 2026-01-06 16:06Summary
A zip bomb can be used to execute a DoS against the aiohttp server.
Impact
An attacker may be able to send a compressed request that when decompressed by aiohttp could exhaust the host's memory.
Patch: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/2b920c39002cee0ec5b402581779bbaaf7c9138a
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.13.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "aiohttp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.13.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-69223"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-409",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-01-05T22:58:41Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-05T22:15:53Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nA zip bomb can be used to execute a DoS against the aiohttp server.\n\n### Impact\nAn attacker may be able to send a compressed request that when decompressed by aiohttp could exhaust the host\u0027s memory.\n\n------\n\nPatch: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/2b920c39002cee0ec5b402581779bbaaf7c9138a",
"id": "GHSA-6mq8-rvhq-8wgg",
"modified": "2026-01-06T16:06:18Z",
"published": "2026-01-05T22:58:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/security/advisories/GHSA-6mq8-rvhq-8wgg"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-69223"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/2b920c39002cee0ec5b402581779bbaaf7c9138a"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp"
}
],
"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": "AIOHTTP\u0027s HTTP Parser auto_decompress feature is vulnerable to zip bomb"
}
GHSA-6MR8-CJXV-868W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-11 18:30 – Updated: 2026-03-11 18:30GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 10.0 before 18.7.6, 18.8 before 18.8.6, and 18.9 before 18.9.2 that could have allowed an unauthenticated user to cause a denial of service by issuing specially crafted requests to repository archive endpoints under certain conditions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-13929"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-11T16:16:19Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 10.0 before 18.7.6, 18.8 before 18.8.6, and 18.9 before 18.9.2 that could have allowed an unauthenticated user to cause a denial of service by issuing specially crafted requests to repository archive endpoints under certain conditions.",
"id": "GHSA-6mr8-cjxv-868w",
"modified": "2026-03-11T18:30:32Z",
"published": "2026-03-11T18:30:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-13929"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/3441004"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2026/03/11/patch-release-gitlab-18-9-2-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/582738"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/work_items/582738"
}
],
"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-6P62-6CG9-F5F5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-09 00:35 – Updated: 2025-02-13 19:28HashiCorp Vault and Vault Enterprise 1.12.0 and newer are vulnerable to a denial of service through memory exhaustion of the host when handling large unauthenticated and authenticated HTTP requests from a client. Vault will attempt to map the request to memory, resulting in the exhaustion of available memory on the host, which may cause Vault to crash.
Fixed in Vault 1.15.4, 1.14.8, 1.13.12.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.15.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.15.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.14.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.14.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.12.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.13.12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-6337"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-12-12T00:50:13Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-08T22:15:07Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "HashiCorp Vault and Vault Enterprise 1.12.0 and newer are vulnerable to a denial of service through memory exhaustion of the host when handling large unauthenticated and authenticated HTTP requests from a client. Vault will attempt to map the request to memory, resulting in the exhaustion of available memory on the host, which may cause Vault to crash.\n\nFixed in\u00a0Vault 1.15.4, 1.14.8, 1.13.12.",
"id": "GHSA-6p62-6cg9-f5f5",
"modified": "2025-02-13T19:28:18Z",
"published": "2023-12-09T00:35:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-6337"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/hashicorp/vault/pull/24354"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://discuss.hashicorp.com/t/hcsec-2023-34-vault-vulnerable-to-denial-of-service-through-memory-exhaustion-when-handling-large-http-requests/60741"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240112-0006"
}
],
"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": "Memory exhaustion in HashiCorp Vault"
}
GHSA-6P94-34XM-5X7F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-16 18:31 – Updated: 2025-04-16 18:31Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Drupal Stage File Proxy allows Flooding.This issue affects Stage File Proxy: from 0.0.0 before 3.1.5.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-3734"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-16T17:15:49Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Drupal Stage File Proxy allows Flooding.This issue affects Stage File Proxy: from 0.0.0 before 3.1.5.",
"id": "GHSA-6p94-34xm-5x7f",
"modified": "2025-04-16T18:31:53Z",
"published": "2025-04-16T18:31:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-3734"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.drupal.org/sa-contrib-2025-035"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6P9P-Q6WH-9J89
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-03 23:58 – Updated: 2026-02-04 21:55expandapk.Split drains the first gzip stream of an APK archive via io.Copy(io.Discard, gzi) without explicit bounds. With an attacker-controlled input stream, this can force large gzip inflation work and lead to resource exhaustion (availability impact).
The Split function reads the first tar header, then drains the remainder of the gzip stream by reading from the gzip reader directly without any maximum uncompressed byte limit or inflate-ratio cap. A caller that parses attacker-controlled APK streams may be forced to spend excessive CPU time inflating gzip data, leading to timeouts or process slowdown.
Fix: Fixed with 2be3903, Released in v1.1.0.
Acknowledgements
apko thanks Oleh Konko from 1seal for discovering and reporting this issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "chainguard.dev/apko"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.14.8"
},
{
"fixed": "1.1.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-25122"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-03T23:58:37Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-04T19:16:14Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "`expandapk.Split` drains the first gzip stream of an APK archive via `io.Copy(io.Discard, gzi)` without explicit bounds. With an attacker-controlled input stream, this can force large gzip inflation work and lead to resource exhaustion (availability impact). \n \nThe `Split` function reads the first tar header, then drains the remainder of the gzip stream by reading from the gzip reader directly without any maximum uncompressed byte limit or inflate-ratio cap. A caller that parses attacker-controlled APK streams may be forced to spend excessive CPU time inflating gzip data, leading to timeouts or process slowdown. \n \n**Fix:** Fixed with [2be3903](https://github.com/chainguard-dev/apko/commit/2be3903fe194ad46351840f0569b35f5ac965f09), Released in v1.1.0. \n \n**Acknowledgements** \n \napko thanks Oleh Konko from [1seal](https://1seal.org/) for discovering and reporting this issue.",
"id": "GHSA-6p9p-q6wh-9j89",
"modified": "2026-02-04T21:55:51Z",
"published": "2026-02-03T23:58:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/chainguard-dev/apko/security/advisories/GHSA-6p9p-q6wh-9j89"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25122"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/chainguard-dev/apko/commit/2be3903fe194ad46351840f0569b35f5ac965f09"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/chainguard-dev/apko"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "apko affected by unbounded resource consumption in expandapk.Split on attacker-controlled .apk streams "
}
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.