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.
3011 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-859V-9MCV-7RW3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:10 – Updated: 2024-04-04 02:48C++ Facebook Thrift servers would not error upon receiving messages declaring containers of sizes larger than the payload. As a result, malicious clients could send short messages which would result in a large memory allocation, potentially leading to denial of service. This issue affects Facebook Thrift prior to v2020.02.03.00.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-3553"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-03-10T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "C++ Facebook Thrift servers would not error upon receiving messages declaring containers of sizes larger than the payload. As a result, malicious clients could send short messages which would result in a large memory allocation, potentially leading to denial of service. This issue affects Facebook Thrift prior to v2020.02.03.00.",
"id": "GHSA-859v-9mcv-7rw3",
"modified": "2024-04-04T02:48:36Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:10:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-3553"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/facebook/fbthrift/commit/3f156207e8a6583d88999487e954320dc18955e6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/facebook/fbthrift/commit/c9a903e5902834e95bbd4ab0e9fa53ba0189f351"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.facebook.com/security/advisories/cve-2019-3553"
}
],
"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-85CJ-83MP-X2MM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-14 21:30 – Updated: 2023-11-16 15:30An issue was discovered in drivers/usb/storage/ene_ub6250.c for the ENE UB6250 reader driver in the Linux kernel before 6.2.5. An object could potentially extend beyond the end of an allocation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-45862"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-10-14T21:15:45Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in drivers/usb/storage/ene_ub6250.c for the ENE UB6250 reader driver in the Linux kernel before 6.2.5. An object could potentially extend beyond the end of an allocation.",
"id": "GHSA-85cj-83mp-x2mm",
"modified": "2023-11-16T15:30:20Z",
"published": "2023-10-14T21:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-45862"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/ChangeLog-6.2.5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=ce33e64c1788912976b61314b56935abd4bc97ef"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20231116-0004"
}
],
"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-8645-P2V4-73R2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-03 03:40 – Updated: 2026-04-06 23:17Summary
A multipart form parsing bug allows any unauthenticated user to bypass configured request size limits and trigger a denial of service by exhausting server memory or disk.
Details
The issue is in the multipart parsing logic, specifically in multipart_body and multipart_headers.
When parsing multipart data, the implementation distinguishes between: - chunks where a boundary is found - chunks where more data is required
In the normal case (boundary found), the parser correctly accounts for consumed bytes by calling decrement_quota.
However, in the MoreRequiredForBody branch, the parser appends incoming data to the output but recurses without decrementing the quota. This means that any chunk that does not contain the multipart boundary is effectively “free” from a quota perspective. Only the final chunk, the one containing the boundary, is counted.
The same pattern exists in multipart_headers, where MoreRequiredForHeaders also recurses without decrementing the quota.
As a result, an attacker can send arbitrarily large multipart bodies split across many chunks that avoid the boundary. The parser will accumulate the data (in memory for form fields, on disk for file uploads) without enforcing max_body_size or max_files_size.
Impact
This is a denial of service vulnerability caused by uncontrolled resource consumption.
Any application using require_form or require_multipart_form on user-controlled input is affected. An unauthenticated attacker can send large multipart requests that bypass configured limits and cause:
- memory exhaustion (for form fields accumulated in memory)
- disk exhaustion (for file uploads written to temporary storage)
In both cases, the application may become unavailable or be terminated by the operating system.
Workaround
Deploy a reverse proxy (such as nginx or HAProxy) in front of the application and enforce request body size limits there. This ensures large multipart requests are rejected before they reach the vulnerable parser.
Resources
- Introducing commit: https://github.com/gleam-wisp/wisp/commit/d8e722e22ccb42bda9d0b6248658d37ab4e9b376
- Fix commit: https://github.com/gleam-wisp/wisp/commit/7a978748e12ab29db232c222254465890e1a4a90
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Hex",
"name": "wisp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.2.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-32145"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-03T03:40:30Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-02T11:16:21Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nA multipart form parsing bug allows any unauthenticated user to bypass configured request size limits and trigger a denial of service by exhausting server memory or disk.\n\n### Details\nThe issue is in the multipart parsing logic, specifically in `multipart_body` and `multipart_headers`.\n\nWhen parsing multipart data, the implementation distinguishes between:\n- chunks where a boundary is found\n- chunks where more data is required\n\nIn the normal case (boundary found), the parser correctly accounts for consumed bytes by calling `decrement_quota`.\n\nHowever, in the `MoreRequiredForBody` branch, the parser appends incoming data to the output but recurses without decrementing the quota. This means that any chunk that does not contain the multipart boundary is effectively \u201cfree\u201d from a quota perspective. Only the final chunk, the one containing the boundary, is counted.\n\nThe same pattern exists in `multipart_headers`, where `MoreRequiredForHeaders` also recurses without decrementing the quota.\n\nAs a result, an attacker can send arbitrarily large multipart bodies split across many chunks that avoid the boundary. The parser will accumulate the data (in memory for form fields, on disk for file uploads) without enforcing `max_body_size` or `max_files_size`.\n\n### Impact\nThis is a denial of service vulnerability caused by uncontrolled resource consumption.\n\nAny application using `require_form` or `require_multipart_form` on user-controlled input is affected. An unauthenticated attacker can send large multipart requests that bypass configured limits and cause:\n\n- memory exhaustion (for form fields accumulated in memory)\n- disk exhaustion (for file uploads written to temporary storage)\n\nIn both cases, the application may become unavailable or be terminated by the operating system.\n\n### Workaround\nDeploy a reverse proxy (such as nginx or HAProxy) in front of the application and enforce request body size limits there. This ensures large multipart requests are rejected before they reach the vulnerable parser.\n\n### Resources\n- Introducing commit: https://github.com/gleam-wisp/wisp/commit/d8e722e22ccb42bda9d0b6248658d37ab4e9b376\n- Fix commit: https://github.com/gleam-wisp/wisp/commit/7a978748e12ab29db232c222254465890e1a4a90",
"id": "GHSA-8645-p2v4-73r2",
"modified": "2026-04-06T23:17:44Z",
"published": "2026-04-03T03:40:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gleam-wisp/wisp/security/advisories/GHSA-8645-p2v4-73r2"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32145"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gleam-wisp/wisp/commit/7a978748e12ab29db232c222254465890e1a4a90"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-32145.html"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/gleam-wisp/wisp"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-32145"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "wisp has Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling"
}
GHSA-867Q-8RPR-VPPH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-04 00:30 – Updated: 2026-02-04 00:30Filetto 1.0 FTP server contains a denial of service vulnerability in the FEAT command processing that allows attackers to crash the service. Attackers can send an oversized FEAT command with 11,008 bytes of repeated characters to trigger a buffer overflow and terminate the FTP service.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-37067"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-03T22:16:21Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Filetto 1.0 FTP server contains a denial of service vulnerability in the FEAT command processing that allows attackers to crash the service. Attackers can send an oversized FEAT command with 11,008 bytes of repeated characters to trigger a buffer overflow and terminate the FTP service.",
"id": "GHSA-867q-8rpr-vpph",
"modified": "2026-02-04T00:30:28Z",
"published": "2026-02-04T00:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-37067"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sourceforge.net/projects/filetto"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/48503"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/filetto-feat-denial-of-service"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.utillyty.eu"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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-868X-RG4C-CJQG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-01-08 00:39 – Updated: 2023-09-26 20:26A vulnerability in the .NET SDK of Apache Avro allows an attacker to allocate excessive resources, potentially causing a denial-of-service attack. This issue affects .NET applications using Apache Avro version 1.10.2 and prior versions. Users should update to version 1.11.0 which addresses this issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Apache.Avro"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.11.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-43045"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-01-07T22:36:54Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-01-06T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the .NET SDK of Apache Avro allows an attacker to allocate excessive resources, potentially causing a denial-of-service attack. This issue affects .NET applications using Apache Avro version 1.10.2 and prior versions. Users should update to version 1.11.0 which addresses this issue.",
"id": "GHSA-868x-rg4c-cjqg",
"modified": "2023-09-26T20:26:04Z",
"published": "2022-01-08T00:39:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-43045"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/avro/pull/1357"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/avro"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-3225"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-3226"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/5fttw9vk6gd2p3b846nox7hcj5469xfd"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2022/01/06/8"
}
],
"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": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in Apache Avro"
}
GHSA-869W-47C6-FQ8Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-15 14:05 – Updated: 2025-05-22 14:57Summary
Minting large amount of tokens through ibc transfer and then depositing them in validator rewards pool (via DepositValidatorRewardsPool message) can lead to integer overflow panic when calculating cumulative_reward_ratio for the validator.
This calculation happens in x/epoching module EndBlocker, thus the panic will halt the chain.
Impact
Denial of Service - Due to panic in the EndBlocker Babylon Genesis will halt
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/babylonlabs-io/babylon"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.1.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-190",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-05-15T14:05:50Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nMinting large amount of tokens through ibc transfer and then depositing them in validator rewards pool (via `DepositValidatorRewardsPool` message) can lead to integer overflow panic when calculating `cumulative_reward_ratio` for the validator.\n\nThis calculation happens in `x/epoching` module `EndBlocker`, thus the panic will halt the chain.\n\n### Impact\n\nDenial of Service - Due to panic in the `EndBlocker` Babylon Genesis will halt",
"id": "GHSA-869w-47c6-fq8q",
"modified": "2025-05-22T14:57:31Z",
"published": "2025-05-15T14:05:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/babylonlabs-io/babylon/security/advisories/GHSA-869w-47c6-fq8q"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/babylonlabs-io/babylon/commit/f0a29d60f206268b56992fa50f38a48077eb4f59"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/babylonlabs-io/babylon"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2025-3687"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Babylon Integer Overflow in Distribution Module CumulativeRewardRatio Calculation Leading to Chain Halt"
}
GHSA-86C2-R56G-P9G8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-28 00:32 – Updated: 2025-11-03 21:32The issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.3, macOS Sonoma 14.7.3. Parsing a file may lead to an unexpected app termination.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-24112"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-27T22:15:16Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.3, macOS Sonoma 14.7.3. Parsing a file may lead to an unexpected app termination.",
"id": "GHSA-86c2-r56g-p9g8",
"modified": "2025-11-03T21:32:24Z",
"published": "2025-01-28T00:32:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-24112"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122068"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122069"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Jan/15"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Jan/16"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-86QC-CJW2-JQJ2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-11-01 19:00 – Updated: 2025-05-06 15:30Xenstore: guests can let run xenstored out of memory T[his CNA information record relates to multiple CVEs; the text explains which aspects/vulnerabilities correspond to which CVE.] Malicious guests can cause xenstored to allocate vast amounts of memory, eventually resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS) of xenstored. There are multiple ways how guests can cause large memory allocations in xenstored: - - by issuing new requests to xenstored without reading the responses, causing the responses to be buffered in memory - - by causing large number of watch events to be generated via setting up multiple xenstore watches and then e.g. deleting many xenstore nodes below the watched path - - by creating as many nodes as allowed with the maximum allowed size and path length in as many transactions as possible - - by accessing many nodes inside a transaction
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-42314"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-11-01T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Xenstore: guests can let run xenstored out of memory T[his CNA information record relates to multiple CVEs; the text explains which aspects/vulnerabilities correspond to which CVE.] Malicious guests can cause xenstored to allocate vast amounts of memory, eventually resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS) of xenstored. There are multiple ways how guests can cause large memory allocations in xenstored: - - by issuing new requests to xenstored without reading the responses, causing the responses to be buffered in memory - - by causing large number of watch events to be generated via setting up multiple xenstore watches and then e.g. deleting many xenstore nodes below the watched path - - by creating as many nodes as allowed with the maximum allowed size and path length in as many transactions as possible - - by accessing many nodes inside a transaction",
"id": "GHSA-86qc-cjw2-jqj2",
"modified": "2025-05-06T15:30:38Z",
"published": "2022-11-01T19:00:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-42314"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YTMITQBGC23MSDHUCAPCVGLMVXIBXQTQ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YZVXG7OOOXCX6VIPEMLFDPIPUTFAYWPE"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZLI2NPNEH7CNJO3VZGQNOI4M4EWLNKPZ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YTMITQBGC23MSDHUCAPCVGLMVXIBXQTQ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YZVXG7OOOXCX6VIPEMLFDPIPUTFAYWPE"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZLI2NPNEH7CNJO3VZGQNOI4M4EWLNKPZ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2022/dsa-5272"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://xenbits.xenproject.org/xsa/advisory-326.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://xenbits.xen.org/xsa/advisory-326.html"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-86X4-WP9F-WRR9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-06 22:36 – Updated: 2026-02-07 00:33Impact
Antrea's network policy priority assignment system has a uint16 arithmetic overflow bug that causes incorrect OpenFlow priority calculations when handling a large numbers of policies with various priority values. This results in potentially incorrect traffic enforcement.
If a user creates a large number of Antrea NetworkPolicies (ANP or ACNP) with varying priorities, some rules with lower logical priorities (higher numerical priority values) may take precedence over rules with higher logical priorities (lower numerical priority values). Traffic that should be denied by the configured Antrea NetworkPolicies may end up being allowed, potentially letting an attacker access a sensitive service. Traffic that should be allowed by the configured Antrea NetworkPolicies may end up being denied, breaking applications and potentially opening the door for denial-of-service attacks.
The Antrea NetworkPolicy system comes with support for priority Tiers. Rules defined within a Tier cannot take precedence over rules defined in higher priority Tiers. Some users / roles may only be authorized to define within specific Tiers. This security vulnerability enables such users to intentionally "escape" their Tier and override rules in higher priority Tiers.
Antrea deployments that only use upstream Kubernetes NetworkPolicies - and do not use Antrea NetworkPolicies - are not affected.
Patches
https://github.com/antrea-io/antrea/pull/7496 Antrea v2.5.0 Antrea v2.4.3 Antrea v2.3.2
Workarounds
Antrea deployments that only use upstream Kubernetes NetworkPolicies - and do not use Antrea NetworkPolicies - are not affected.
For users leveraging Antrea NetworkPolicies, there is no way to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading.
Resources
https://gist.github.com/antoninbas/c429cc3e5bb8479ba7ff38fd6fde59d9 https://github.com/antrea-io/antrea/pull/7496 https://github.com/antrea-io/antrea/blob/main/docs/antrea-network-policy.md
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "antrea.io/antrea"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.3.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "antrea.io/antrea"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.4.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-25804"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-06T22:36:29Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-06T23:15:55Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nAntrea\u0027s network policy priority assignment system has a uint16 arithmetic overflow bug that causes incorrect OpenFlow priority calculations when handling a large numbers of policies with various priority values. This results in potentially incorrect traffic enforcement.\n\nIf a user creates a large number of Antrea NetworkPolicies (ANP or ACNP) with varying priorities, some rules with lower logical priorities (higher numerical priority values) may take precedence over rules with higher logical priorities (lower numerical priority values). Traffic that should be denied by the configured Antrea NetworkPolicies may end up being allowed, potentially letting an attacker access a sensitive service. Traffic that should be allowed by the configured Antrea NetworkPolicies may end up being denied, breaking applications and potentially opening the door for denial-of-service attacks.\n\nThe Antrea NetworkPolicy system comes with support for priority Tiers. Rules defined within a Tier cannot take precedence over rules defined in higher priority Tiers. Some users / roles may only be authorized to define within specific Tiers. This security vulnerability enables such users to intentionally \"escape\" their Tier and override rules in higher priority Tiers.\n\nAntrea deployments that *only* use upstream Kubernetes NetworkPolicies - and do not use Antrea NetworkPolicies - are not affected.\n\n### Patches\nhttps://github.com/antrea-io/antrea/pull/7496\nAntrea v2.5.0\nAntrea v2.4.3\nAntrea v2.3.2\n\n### Workarounds\n\nAntrea deployments that *only* use upstream Kubernetes NetworkPolicies - and do not use Antrea NetworkPolicies - are not affected.\n\nFor users leveraging Antrea NetworkPolicies, there is no way to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading.\n\n### Resources\n\nhttps://gist.github.com/antoninbas/c429cc3e5bb8479ba7ff38fd6fde59d9\nhttps://github.com/antrea-io/antrea/pull/7496\nhttps://github.com/antrea-io/antrea/blob/main/docs/antrea-network-policy.md",
"id": "GHSA-86x4-wp9f-wrr9",
"modified": "2026-02-07T00:33:42Z",
"published": "2026-02-06T22:36:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/antrea-io/antrea/security/advisories/GHSA-86x4-wp9f-wrr9"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25804"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/antrea-io/antrea/pull/7496"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/antrea-io/antrea/commit/86c4b6010f3be536866f339b632621c23d7186fa"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/antoninbas/c429cc3e5bb8479ba7ff38fd6fde59d9"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/antrea-io/antrea"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/antrea-io/antrea/blob/main/docs/antrea-network-policy.md"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Antrea has invalid enforcement order for network policy rules caused by integer overflow"
}
GHSA-873M-7P94-JMF5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-10 21:30 – Updated: 2025-09-10 21:30IBM Security Verify Information Queue 10.0.5, 10.0.6, 10.0.7, and 10.0.8 could allow a remote user to cause a denial of service due to improper handling of special characters that could lead to uncontrolled resource consumption.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-45669"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-10T20:15:31Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Security Verify Information Queue 10.0.5, 10.0.6, 10.0.7, and 10.0.8 could allow a remote user to cause a denial of service due to improper handling of special characters that could lead to uncontrolled resource consumption.",
"id": "GHSA-873m-7p94-jmf5",
"modified": "2025-09-10T21:30:19Z",
"published": "2025-09-10T21:30:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-45669"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7244514"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.