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-8WXP-XXP2-RCGX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-08 20:44 – Updated: 2026-06-08 23:54Impact
The Volcano webhook server does not enforce a size limit on incoming HTTP request bodies. Any in-cluster pod that can reach the webhook endpoint may send an arbitrarily large request body, potentially causing the webhook server to be killed by OOM. All Volcano deployments with the webhook server exposed to in-cluster traffic are affected.
Patches
This issue will be fixed in the following versions: - v1.14.2 - v1.13.3 - v1.12.4
Users running versions below these should upgrade accordingly.
Workarounds
No known workarounds. Upgrade to the patched versions listed above.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "volcano.sh/volcano"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.12.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "volcano.sh/volcano"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.13.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.13.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "volcano.sh/volcano"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.14.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.14.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-44247"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-08T20:44:54Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-27T22:16:35Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nThe Volcano webhook server does not enforce a size limit on incoming HTTP request bodies. Any in-cluster pod that can reach the webhook endpoint may send an arbitrarily large request body, potentially causing the webhook server to be killed by OOM. All Volcano deployments with the webhook server exposed to in-cluster traffic are affected.\n\n### Patches\nThis issue will be fixed in the following versions:\n- v1.14.2\n- v1.13.3\n- v1.12.4\n\nUsers running versions below these should upgrade accordingly.\n\n### Workarounds\nNo known workarounds. Upgrade to the patched versions listed above.",
"id": "GHSA-8wxp-xxp2-rcgx",
"modified": "2026-06-08T23:54:51Z",
"published": "2026-05-08T20:44:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/volcano-sh/volcano/security/advisories/GHSA-8wxp-xxp2-rcgx"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-44247"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/volcano-sh/volcano"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Volcano\u0027s webhook server vulnerable to OOM due to unbounded HTTP request body size"
}
GHSA-8X93-7GJ9-73C3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:52 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:52The Exiv2::Jp2Image::readMetadata function in jp2image.cpp in Exiv2 0.26 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (excessive memory allocation) via a crafted file.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-4868"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-01-03T09:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Exiv2::Jp2Image::readMetadata function in jp2image.cpp in Exiv2 0.26 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (excessive memory allocation) via a crafted file.",
"id": "GHSA-8x93-7gj9-73c3",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:52:42Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:52:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-4868"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Exiv2/exiv2/issues/202"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/102477"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8X99-24CG-9H7M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-01 00:32 – Updated: 2024-11-01 00:32A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in Tongda OA 2017 up to 11.7. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /inc/package_static_resources.php. The manipulation leads to resource consumption. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-10599"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-31T22:15:03Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in Tongda OA 2017 up to 11.7. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /inc/package_static_resources.php. The manipulation leads to resource consumption. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.",
"id": "GHSA-8x99-24cg-9h7m",
"modified": "2024-11-01T00:32:01Z",
"published": "2024-11-01T00:32:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-10599"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/LvZCh/td/issues/2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.282611"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.282611"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.433496"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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-8XG5-RHGX-6586
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-11 18:32 – Updated: 2024-10-11 18:32An Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in the PFE management daemon (evo-pfemand) of Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved allows an authenticated, network-based attacker to cause an FPC crash leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).When specific SNMP GET operations or specific low-priviledged CLI commands are executed, a GUID resource leak will occur, eventually leading to exhaustion and resulting in FPCs to hang. Affected FPCs need to be manually restarted to recover.
GUID exhaustion will trigger a syslog message like one of the following:
evo-pfemand[]: get_next_guid: Ran out of Guid Space ... evo-aftmand-zx[]: get_next_guid: Ran out of Guid Space ... The leak can be monitored by running the following command and taking note of the values in the rightmost column labeled Guids:
user@host> show platform application-info allocations app evo-pfemand/evo-pfemand
In case one or more of these values are constantly increasing the leak is happening.
This issue affects Junos OS Evolved:
- All versions before 21.4R2-EVO,
- 22.1 versions before 22.1R2-EVO.
Please note that this issue is similar to, but different from CVE-2024-47505 and CVE-2024-47508.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-47509"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-11T16:15:13Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling\u00a0vulnerability in the PFE management daemon (evo-pfemand) of Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved allows an authenticated, network-based attacker to cause an FPC crash leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).When specific SNMP GET operations or specific low-priviledged CLI commands are executed, a GUID resource leak will occur, eventually leading to exhaustion and resulting in FPCs to hang. Affected FPCs need to be manually restarted to recover.\n\nGUID exhaustion will trigger a syslog message like one of the following:\n\nevo-pfemand[\u003cpid\u003e]: get_next_guid: Ran out of Guid Space ...\nevo-aftmand-zx[\u003cpid\u003e]: get_next_guid: Ran out of Guid Space ...\nThe leak can be monitored by running the following command and taking note of the values in the rightmost column labeled Guids:\n\n\n\n\n\nuser@host\u003e show platform application-info allocations app evo-pfemand/evo-pfemand\n\n\n\nIn case one or more of these values are constantly increasing the leak is happening.\n\nThis issue affects Junos OS Evolved:\n\n\n\n * All versions before 21.4R2-EVO,\n * 22.1 versions before 22.1R2-EVO.\n\n\n\n\n\nPlease note that this issue is similar to, but different from CVE-2024-47505 and CVE-2024-47508.",
"id": "GHSA-8xg5-rhgx-6586",
"modified": "2024-10-11T18:32:50Z",
"published": "2024-10-11T18:32:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-47509"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://supportportal.juniper.net"
}
],
"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: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:Y/R:X/V:X/RE:M/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-9259-5376-VJCJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:53 – Updated: 2025-01-14 21:31Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a settings flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of SETTINGS frames to the peer. Since the RFC requires that the peer reply with one acknowledgement per SETTINGS frame, an empty SETTINGS frame is almost equivalent in behavior to a ping. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-9515"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-13T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a settings flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of SETTINGS frames to the peer. Since the RFC requires that the peer reply with one acknowledgement per SETTINGS frame, an empty SETTINGS frame is almost equivalent in behavior to a ping. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.",
"id": "GHSA-9259-5376-vjcj",
"modified": "2025-01-14T21:31:39Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:53:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-9515"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/392108390cef48af647a2e47b7fd5380e050e35ae8d1aa2030254c04@%3Cusers.trafficserver.apache.org%3E"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ad3d01e767199c1aed8033bb6b3f5bf98c011c7c536f07a5d34b3c19%40%3Cannounce.trafficserver.apache.org%3E"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ad3d01e767199c1aed8033bb6b3f5bf98c011c7c536f07a5d34b3c19@%3Cannounce.trafficserver.apache.org%3E"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/bde52309316ae798186d783a5e29f4ad1527f61c9219a289d0eee0a7%40%3Cdev.trafficserver.apache.org%3E"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/bde52309316ae798186d783a5e29f4ad1527f61c9219a289d0eee0a7@%3Cdev.trafficserver.apache.org%3E"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4ZQGHE3WTYLYAYJEIDJVF2FIGQTAYPMC"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CMNFX5MNYRWWIMO4BTKYQCGUDMHO3AXP"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4ZQGHE3WTYLYAYJEIDJVF2FIGQTAYPMC"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CMNFX5MNYRWWIMO4BTKYQCGUDMHO3AXP"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Aug/24"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Aug/43"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Sep/18"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20190823-0005"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K50233772"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K50233772?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp%3Butm_medium=RSS"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K50233772?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp;utm_medium=RSS"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://usn.ubuntu.com/4308-1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2019/dsa-4508"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2019/dsa-4520"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.synology.com/security/advisory/Synology_SA_19_33"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2766"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2796"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2861"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2925"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2939"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2955"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3892"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:4018"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:4019"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:4020"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:4021"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:4040"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:4041"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:4042"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:4045"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:4352"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2020:0727"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Netflix/security-bulletins/blob/master/advisories/third-party/2019-002.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kb.cert.org/vuls/id/605641"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kc.mcafee.com/corporate/index?page=content\u0026id=SB10296"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/392108390cef48af647a2e47b7fd5380e050e35ae8d1aa2030254c04%40%3Cusers.trafficserver.apache.org%3E"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00031.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00032.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2019/Aug/16"
}
],
"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-926P-3C4C-XJ6W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-08 12:30 – Updated: 2025-08-12 12:30A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM i800, RUGGEDCOM i800NC, RUGGEDCOM i801, RUGGEDCOM i801NC, RUGGEDCOM i802, RUGGEDCOM i802NC, RUGGEDCOM i803, RUGGEDCOM i803NC, RUGGEDCOM M2100, RUGGEDCOM M2100F, RUGGEDCOM M2100NC, RUGGEDCOM M2200, RUGGEDCOM M2200F, RUGGEDCOM M2200NC, RUGGEDCOM M969, RUGGEDCOM M969F, RUGGEDCOM M969NC, RUGGEDCOM RMC30, RUGGEDCOM RMC30NC, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RP110, RUGGEDCOM RP110NC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600, RUGGEDCOM RS1600F, RUGGEDCOM RS1600FNC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600NC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600T, RUGGEDCOM RS1600TNC, RUGGEDCOM RS400, RUGGEDCOM RS400F, RUGGEDCOM RS400NC, RUGGEDCOM RS401, RUGGEDCOM RS401NC, RUGGEDCOM RS416, RUGGEDCOM RS416F, RUGGEDCOM RS416NC, RUGGEDCOM RS416NC v2, RUGGEDCOM RS416P, RUGGEDCOM RS416PF, RUGGEDCOM RS416PNC, RUGGEDCOM RS416PNC v2, RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2, RUGGEDCOM RS416v2, RUGGEDCOM RS8000, RUGGEDCOM RS8000A, RUGGEDCOM RS8000ANC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000H, RUGGEDCOM RS8000HNC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000NC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000T, RUGGEDCOM RS8000TNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900F, RUGGEDCOM RS900G, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GF, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GP, RUGGEDCOM RS900GPF, RUGGEDCOM RS900GPNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900L, RUGGEDCOM RS900LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-GETS-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-GETS-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-STND-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-STND-XX-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900W, RUGGEDCOM RS910, RUGGEDCOM RS910L, RUGGEDCOM RS910LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS910NC, RUGGEDCOM RS910W, RUGGEDCOM RS920L, RUGGEDCOM RS920LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS920W, RUGGEDCOM RS930L, RUGGEDCOM RS930LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS930W, RUGGEDCOM RS940G, RUGGEDCOM RS940GF, RUGGEDCOM RS940GNC, RUGGEDCOM RS969, RUGGEDCOM RS969NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100PF, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100PNC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PF, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PNC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PNC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG907R, RUGGEDCOM RSG908C, RUGGEDCOM RSG909R, RUGGEDCOM RSG910C, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920PNC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920PNC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSL910, RUGGEDCOM RSL910NC, RUGGEDCOM RST2228, RUGGEDCOM RST2228P, RUGGEDCOM RST916C, RUGGEDCOM RST916P. The web server of the affected devices contains a vulnerability that may lead to a denial of service condition. An attacker may cause total loss of availability of the web server, which might recover after the attack is over.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-39269"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-08T10:15:21Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM i800, RUGGEDCOM i800NC, RUGGEDCOM i801, RUGGEDCOM i801NC, RUGGEDCOM i802, RUGGEDCOM i802NC, RUGGEDCOM i803, RUGGEDCOM i803NC, RUGGEDCOM M2100, RUGGEDCOM M2100F, RUGGEDCOM M2100NC, RUGGEDCOM M2200, RUGGEDCOM M2200F, RUGGEDCOM M2200NC, RUGGEDCOM M969, RUGGEDCOM M969F, RUGGEDCOM M969NC, RUGGEDCOM RMC30, RUGGEDCOM RMC30NC, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RP110, RUGGEDCOM RP110NC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600, RUGGEDCOM RS1600F, RUGGEDCOM RS1600FNC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600NC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600T, RUGGEDCOM RS1600TNC, RUGGEDCOM RS400, RUGGEDCOM RS400F, RUGGEDCOM RS400NC, RUGGEDCOM RS401, RUGGEDCOM RS401NC, RUGGEDCOM RS416, RUGGEDCOM RS416F, RUGGEDCOM RS416NC, RUGGEDCOM RS416NC v2, RUGGEDCOM RS416P, RUGGEDCOM RS416PF, RUGGEDCOM RS416PNC, RUGGEDCOM RS416PNC v2, RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2, RUGGEDCOM RS416v2, RUGGEDCOM RS8000, RUGGEDCOM RS8000A, RUGGEDCOM RS8000ANC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000H, RUGGEDCOM RS8000HNC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000NC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000T, RUGGEDCOM RS8000TNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900F, RUGGEDCOM RS900G, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GF, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GP, RUGGEDCOM RS900GPF, RUGGEDCOM RS900GPNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900L, RUGGEDCOM RS900LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-GETS-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-GETS-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-STND-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-STND-XX-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900W, RUGGEDCOM RS910, RUGGEDCOM RS910L, RUGGEDCOM RS910LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS910NC, RUGGEDCOM RS910W, RUGGEDCOM RS920L, RUGGEDCOM RS920LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS920W, RUGGEDCOM RS930L, RUGGEDCOM RS930LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS930W, RUGGEDCOM RS940G, RUGGEDCOM RS940GF, RUGGEDCOM RS940GNC, RUGGEDCOM RS969, RUGGEDCOM RS969NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100PF, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100PNC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PF, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PNC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PNC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG907R, RUGGEDCOM RSG908C, RUGGEDCOM RSG909R, RUGGEDCOM RSG910C, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920PNC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920PNC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSL910, RUGGEDCOM RSL910NC, RUGGEDCOM RST2228, RUGGEDCOM RST2228P, RUGGEDCOM RST916C, RUGGEDCOM RST916P. The web server of the affected devices contains a vulnerability that may lead to a denial of service condition.\nAn attacker may cause total loss of availability of the web server, which might recover after the attack is over.",
"id": "GHSA-926p-3c4c-xj6w",
"modified": "2025-08-12T12:30:32Z",
"published": "2023-08-08T12:30:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-39269"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-770902.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-770902.pdf"
}
],
"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-92GF-P376-6R9R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-14 12:00 – Updated: 2024-11-22 20:18Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in GitHub repository ikus060/rdiffweb prior to 2.5.0.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "rdiffweb"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.5.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-3456"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-10-14T21:30:20Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-10-13T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in GitHub repository ikus060/rdiffweb prior to 2.5.0.",
"id": "GHSA-92gf-p376-6r9r",
"modified": "2024-11-22T20:18:19Z",
"published": "2022-10-14T12:00:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-3456"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ikus060/rdiffweb/commit/b78ec09f4582e363f6f449df6f987127e126c311"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ikus060/rdiffweb"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/rdiffweb/PYSEC-2022-43160.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/b34412ca-50c5-4615-b7e3-5d07d33acfce"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [],
"summary": "Missing rate limit on rdiffweb"
}
GHSA-92RQ-C8CF-PRRQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-12 20:16 – Updated: 2025-11-03 21:33Summary
ruby-saml is susceptible to remote Denial of Service (DoS) with compressed SAML responses.
Ruby-saml uses zlib to decompress SAML responses in case they're compressed. It is possible to bypass the message size check with a compressed assertion since the message size is checked before inflation and not after.
Impact
This issue may lead to remote Denial of Service (DoS).
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "ruby-saml"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.12.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "ruby-saml"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.13.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.18.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-25293"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-03-12T20:16:50Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-12T21:15:42Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nruby-saml is susceptible to remote Denial of Service (DoS) with compressed SAML responses.\n\nRuby-saml uses zlib to decompress SAML responses in case they\u0027re compressed. It is possible to bypass the message size check with a compressed assertion since the message size is checked before inflation and not after.\n\n### Impact\nThis issue may lead to remote Denial of Service (DoS).",
"id": "GHSA-92rq-c8cf-prrq",
"modified": "2025-11-03T21:33:11Z",
"published": "2025-03-12T20:16:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SAML-Toolkits/ruby-saml/security/advisories/GHSA-92rq-c8cf-prrq"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/omniauth/omniauth-saml/security/advisories/GHSA-hw46-3hmr-x9xv"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-25293"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SAML-Toolkits/ruby-saml/commit/acac9e9cc0b9a507882c614f25d41f8b47be349a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SAML-Toolkits/ruby-saml/commit/e2da4c6dae7dc01a4d9cd221395140a67e2b3eb1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2025/03/12/patch-release-gitlab-17-9-2-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.blog/security/sign-in-as-anyone-bypassing-saml-sso-authentication-with-parser-differentials"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/SAML-Toolkits/ruby-saml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SAML-Toolkits/ruby-saml/releases/tag/v1.12.4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SAML-Toolkits/ruby-saml/releases/tag/v1.18.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/ruby-saml/CVE-2025-25293.yml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/04/msg00011.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20250314-0008"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://securitylab.github.com/advisories/GHSL-2024-355_ruby-saml"
}
],
"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:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Ruby SAML allows remote Denial of Service (DoS) with compressed SAML responses"
}
GHSA-92VJ-G62V-JQHH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-12 21:12 – Updated: 2025-09-12 21:12Summary
A flaw in the bodyLimit middleware could allow bypassing the configured request body size limit when conflicting HTTP headers were present.
Details
The middleware previously prioritized the Content-Length header even when a Transfer-Encoding: chunked header was also included. According to the HTTP specification, Content-Length must be ignored in such cases. This discrepancy could allow oversized request bodies to bypass the configured limit.
Most standards-compliant runtimes and reverse proxies may reject such malformed requests with 400 Bad Request, so the practical impact depends on the runtime and deployment environment.
Impact
If body size limits are used as a safeguard against large or malicious requests, this flaw could allow attackers to send oversized request bodies. The primary risk is denial of service (DoS) due to excessive memory or CPU consumption when handling very large requests.
Resolution
The implementation has been updated to align with the HTTP specification, ensuring that Transfer-Encoding takes precedence over Content-Length. The issue is fixed in Hono v4.9.7, and all users should upgrade immediately.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "hono"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.9.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59139"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-09-12T21:12:20Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-12T14:15:41Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\nA flaw in the `bodyLimit` middleware could allow bypassing the configured request body size limit when conflicting HTTP headers were present.\n\n### Details\nThe middleware previously prioritized the `Content-Length` header even when a `Transfer-Encoding: chunked` header was also included. According to the HTTP specification, `Content-Length` must be ignored in such cases. This discrepancy could allow oversized request bodies to bypass the configured limit.\n\nMost standards-compliant runtimes and reverse proxies may reject such malformed requests with `400 Bad Request`, so the practical impact depends on the runtime and deployment environment.\n\n### Impact\nIf body size limits are used as a safeguard against large or malicious requests, this flaw could allow attackers to send oversized request bodies. The primary risk is denial of service (DoS) due to excessive memory or CPU consumption when handling very large requests.\n\n### Resolution\nThe implementation has been updated to align with the HTTP specification, ensuring that `Transfer-Encoding` takes precedence over `Content-Length`. The issue is fixed in Hono v4.9.7, and all users should upgrade immediately.",
"id": "GHSA-92vj-g62v-jqhh",
"modified": "2025-09-12T21:12:20Z",
"published": "2025-09-12T21:12:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono/security/advisories/GHSA-92vj-g62v-jqhh"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59139"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono/commit/605c70560b52f13af10379f79b76717042fafe8d"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono"
}
],
"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": "Hono has Body Limit Middleware Bypass"
}
GHSA-933H-HP56-HF7M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-07 15:30 – Updated: 2026-06-05 17:51An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.4, 5.2 before 5.2.13, and 4.2 before 4.2.30. ASGI requests with a missing or understated Content-Length header could bypass the DATA_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE limit when reading HttpRequest.body, allowing remote attackers to load an unbounded request body into memory.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected. Django would like to thank Superior for reporting this issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Django"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "6.0"
},
{
"fixed": "6.0.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Django"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "5.2"
},
{
"fixed": "5.2.13"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Django"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.2"
},
{
"fixed": "4.2.30"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-33034"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-08T15:29:09Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-07T15:17:39Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in 6.0 before 6.0.4, 5.2 before 5.2.13, and 4.2 before 4.2.30. ASGI requests with a missing or understated `Content-Length` header could bypass the `DATA_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE` limit when reading `HttpRequest.body`, allowing remote attackers to load an unbounded request body into memory.\n\nEarlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.\nDjango would like to thank Superior for reporting this issue.",
"id": "GHSA-933h-hp56-hf7m",
"modified": "2026-06-05T17:51:42Z",
"published": "2026-04-07T15:30:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33034"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/releases/security"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/django/django"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/django/PYSEC-2026-49.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://groups.google.com/g/django-announce"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2026/apr/07/security-releases"
}
],
"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": "Django: SGI requests with a missing or understated `Content-Length` header could bypass the `DATA_UPLOAD_MAX_MEMORY_SIZE` limit"
}
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.