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-9G3P-2G77-4WQ8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-12 21:31 – Updated: 2025-11-04 18:30IBM Db2 for Linux, UNIX and Windows (includes Db2 Connect Server) 10.5, 11.1, and 11.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service as the server may crash when using a specially crafted query on certain columnar tables by an authenticated user. IBM X-Force ID: 287613.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-31881"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-12T19:15:50Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Db2 for Linux, UNIX and Windows (includes Db2 Connect Server) 10.5, 11.1, and 11.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service as the server may crash when using a specially crafted query on certain columnar tables by an authenticated user. IBM X-Force ID: 287613.",
"id": "GHSA-9g3p-2g77-4wq8",
"modified": "2025-11-04T18:30:59Z",
"published": "2024-06-12T21:31:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-31881"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/287613"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240912-0005"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7156852"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9G3V-V24Q-JJ5P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-06 18:52 – Updated: 2024-11-22 20:17rdiffweb prior to 2.5.0a4 does not have a rate limit to prevent attackers attempting brute force attacks to guess passwords. Version 2.5.0a4 limits the number of incorrect password attempts.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "rdiffweb"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.5.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-3273"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-326",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-10-06T20:06:51Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-10-06T18:16:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "rdiffweb prior to 2.5.0a4 does not have a rate limit to prevent attackers attempting brute force attacks to guess passwords. Version 2.5.0a4 limits the number of incorrect password attempts.",
"id": "GHSA-9g3v-v24q-jj5p",
"modified": "2024-11-22T20:17:17Z",
"published": "2022-10-06T18:52:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-3273"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ikus060/rdiffweb/commit/b5e3bb0a98268d18ceead36ab9b2b7eaacd659a8"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ikus060/rdiffweb"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/rdiffweb/PYSEC-2022-43156.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/a6df4bad-3382-4add-8918-760d885690f6"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "rdiffweb does not have a rate limit on incorrect password attempts to prevent brute force attacks"
}
GHSA-9G56-6V3W-F2XJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-05 21:31 – Updated: 2025-11-03 21:33IBM Db2 for Linux, UNIX and Windows (includes DB2 Connect Server) 11.5.0 through 11.5.9 and 12.1.0 through 12.1.1
under specific configurations could allow an authenticated user to cause a denial of service due to insufficient release of allocated memory resources.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-0915"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-05T21:15:46Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Db2 for Linux, UNIX and Windows (includes DB2 Connect Server) 11.5.0 through 11.5.9 and 12.1.0 through 12.1.1 \n\n\n\nunder specific configurations could allow an authenticated user to cause a denial of service due to insufficient release of allocated memory resources.",
"id": "GHSA-9g56-6v3w-f2xj",
"modified": "2025-11-03T21:33:47Z",
"published": "2025-05-05T21:31:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-0915"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20250516-0002"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7232529"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9G9P-9GW9-JX7F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-27 19:18 – Updated: 2026-01-27 19:18A DoS vulnerability exists in self-hosted Next.js applications that have remotePatterns configured for the Image Optimizer. The image optimization endpoint (/_next/image) loads external images entirely into memory without enforcing a maximum size limit, allowing an attacker to cause out-of-memory conditions by requesting optimization of arbitrarily large images. This vulnerability requires that remotePatterns is configured to allow image optimization from external domains and that the attacker can serve or control a large image on an allowed domain.
Strongly consider upgrading to 15.5.10 and 16.1.5 to reduce risk and prevent availability issues in Next applications.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "next"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "10.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "15.5.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "next"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "15.6.0-canary.0"
},
{
"fixed": "16.1.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59471"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-01-27T19:18:25Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-26T22:15:52Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A DoS vulnerability exists in self-hosted Next.js applications that have `remotePatterns` configured for the Image Optimizer. The image optimization endpoint (`/_next/image`) loads external images entirely into memory without enforcing a maximum size limit, allowing an attacker to cause out-of-memory conditions by requesting optimization of arbitrarily large images. This vulnerability requires that `remotePatterns` is configured to allow image optimization from external domains and that the attacker can serve or control a large image on an allowed domain.\n\nStrongly consider upgrading to 15.5.10 and 16.1.5 to reduce risk and prevent availability issues in Next applications.",
"id": "GHSA-9g9p-9gw9-jx7f",
"modified": "2026-01-27T19:18:25Z",
"published": "2026-01-27T19:18:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vercel/next.js/security/advisories/GHSA-9g9p-9gw9-jx7f"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59471"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vercel/next.js/commit/500ec83743639addceaede95e95913398975156c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vercel/next.js/commit/e5b834d208fe0edf64aa26b5d76dcf6a176500ec"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/vercel/next.js"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vercel/next.js/releases/tag/v15.5.10"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vercel/next.js/releases/tag/v16.1.5"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Next.js self-hosted applications vulnerable to DoS via Image Optimizer remotePatterns configuration"
}
GHSA-9G9V-8Q88-8GR6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-20 09:30 – Updated: 2024-03-21 03:35** UNSUPPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** Vulnerability in the RCPbind service running on UDP port (111), allowing a remote attacker to create a denial of service (DoS) condition.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-47562"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-20T08:15:15Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "** UNSUPPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** Vulnerability in the RCPbind service running on UDP port (111), allowing a remote attacker to create a denial of service (DoS) condition.",
"id": "GHSA-9g9v-8q88-8gr6",
"modified": "2024-03-21T03:35:47Z",
"published": "2023-09-20T09:30:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-47562"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.incibe.es/en/incibe-cert/notices/aviso-sci/multiple-vulnerabilities-ormazabal-products"
}
],
"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-9GQM-5HJX-3FMJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-21 21:30 – Updated: 2025-01-21 21:30Vulnerability in the JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Tools product of Oracle JD Edwards (component: Web Runtime SEC). Supported versions that are affected are Prior to 9.2.9.0. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Tools. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Tools. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 6.5 (Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-21509"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-21T21:15:16Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Tools product of Oracle JD Edwards (component: Web Runtime SEC). Supported versions that are affected are Prior to 9.2.9.0. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Tools. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Tools. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 6.5 (Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).",
"id": "GHSA-9gqm-5hjx-3fmj",
"modified": "2025-01-21T21:30:55Z",
"published": "2025-01-21T21:30:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-21509"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujan2025.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9GQR-RX5G-CGRQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-25 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 03:40Sengled Dimmer Switch V0.0.9 contains a denial of service (DOS) vulnerability, which allows a remote attacker to send malicious Zigbee messages to a vulnerable device and cause crashes. After receiving the malicious command, the device will keep reporting its status and finally drain its battery after receiving the 'Set_short_poll_interval' command.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-29779"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-04-25T14:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Sengled Dimmer Switch V0.0.9 contains a denial of service (DOS) vulnerability, which allows a remote attacker to send malicious Zigbee messages to a vulnerable device and cause crashes. After receiving the malicious command, the device will keep reporting its status and finally drain its battery after receiving the \u0027Set_short_poll_interval\u0027 command.",
"id": "GHSA-9gqr-rx5g-cgrq",
"modified": "2024-04-04T03:40:38Z",
"published": "2023-04-25T15:30:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-29779"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/iot-sec23/IoT-CVE/blob/main/Sengled%20Dimmer%20Switch%20Vulnerability%20Report.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://us.sengled.com"
}
],
"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-9H64-2846-7X7F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-06 23:13 – Updated: 2026-05-06 23:13Summary
Eight independently-filed bug fixes in the v7.1.3 → v7.5.0 release window collectively close a set of multi-tenant isolation, access-control, and policy-enforcement defects in the AxonFlow platform. They are filed as a single consolidated advisory because the recommended remediation is a single platform upgrade.
Affected versions
< 7.5.0. Specific items affect different earlier minors; see Impact below.
Patched versions
>= 7.5.0.
Impact
| # | Item | Affected | Patched | CWE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MAP execution multi-tenant isolation. A body-supplied org_id could override the Basic-auth-derived org for both execution recording and policy evaluation. In multi-tenant deployments with shared agents, this could record one tenant's request under another tenant's audit log and evaluate it under the wrong tenant's policy set. |
< 7.4.5 |
>= 7.4.5 |
CWE-863 |
| 2 | Cross-tenant audit-log leak via evidence/explain handlers. The handlers behind /api/v1/evidence/* and /api/v1/decisions/*/explain failed open when the tenant context was missing, returning data scoped to a different tenant or returning data without scope. |
< 7.2.0 |
>= 7.2.0 |
CWE-200, CWE-863 |
| 3 | License-validation bypass on onboard-customer. The portal customer-onboard endpoint lacked authentication and license-key validation, allowing unauthenticated callers to invoke the onboard flow. |
< 7.2.0 |
>= 7.2.0 |
CWE-862 |
| 4 | Tenant-scope fail-open on evidence/explain. Distinct from item 2: when tenant headers were absent, the handler defaulted to a permissive read scope rather than refusing the request. | < 7.2.0 |
>= 7.2.0 |
CWE-862 |
| 5 | Internal-service auth fallback bypass in non-Community modes. Evaluation/Enterprise builds carried an auth fallback path that, under specific request shapes, could be exploited to bypass apiAuthMiddleware. |
< 7.2.0 |
>= 7.2.0 |
CWE-863 |
| 6 | Login timing / org-existence disclosure on the portal. The login handler returned different timing and response bodies for invalid-org vs invalid-password, allowing org enumeration. | < 7.1.3 |
>= 7.1.3 |
CWE-208 |
| 7 | Portal DoS via unbounded request body. The portal accepted unbounded request bodies, allowing memory-exhaustion attacks. Capped at 1 MiB. | < 7.1.5 |
>= 7.1.5 |
CWE-770 |
| 8 | SQL-injection enforcement regression on try.getaxonflow.com. The Community SaaS hosted endpoint inherited the warn SQLi default introduced in v6.2.0, allowing SQL-injection-shaped requests to pass governance to the LLM. Self-hosted deployments were unaffected unless they manually changed the default. |
< 7.5.0 (try.getaxonflow.com only) |
>= 7.5.0 |
CWE-89 |
Remediation
Upgrade to AxonFlow platform v7.5.0 or later. No configuration changes required — the platform is purely additive and existing API/SDK callers continue to work.
For users who can't upgrade immediately, item-specific mitigations:
- Items 1–5: ensure the agent middleware sets
X-Org-ID/X-Tenant-IDfrom authenticated identity at the ingress, never accepting body-supplied identity. - Item 8 (Community SaaS):
SQLI_ACTION=blockcan be set explicitly via the agent task definition; v7.5.0 makes this the default.
Resources
- AxonFlow v7.5.0 CHANGELOG entry: https://github.com/getaxonflow/axonflow/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md
- AxonFlow v7.5.0 GitHub Release: https://github.com/getaxonflow/axonflow/releases/tag/v7.5.0
Credit
Identified by AxonFlow internal security review during the April 2026 quality-freeze epic.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/getaxonflow/axonflow"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "7.5.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-200",
"CWE-208",
"CWE-770",
"CWE-862",
"CWE-863",
"CWE-89"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-06T23:13:27Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nEight independently-filed bug fixes in the v7.1.3 \u2192 v7.5.0 release window collectively close a set of multi-tenant isolation, access-control, and policy-enforcement defects in the AxonFlow platform. They are filed as a single consolidated advisory because the recommended remediation is a single platform upgrade.\n\n## Affected versions\n\n`\u003c 7.5.0`. Specific items affect different earlier minors; see Impact below.\n\n## Patched versions\n\n`\u003e= 7.5.0`.\n\n## Impact\n\n| # | Item | Affected | Patched | CWE |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| 1 | **MAP execution multi-tenant isolation.** A body-supplied `org_id` could override the Basic-auth-derived org for both execution recording and policy evaluation. In multi-tenant deployments with shared agents, this could record one tenant\u0027s request under another tenant\u0027s audit log and evaluate it under the wrong tenant\u0027s policy set. | `\u003c 7.4.5` | `\u003e= 7.4.5` | CWE-863 |\n| 2 | **Cross-tenant audit-log leak via evidence/explain handlers.** The handlers behind `/api/v1/evidence/*` and `/api/v1/decisions/*/explain` failed open when the tenant context was missing, returning data scoped to a different tenant or returning data without scope. | `\u003c 7.2.0` | `\u003e= 7.2.0` | CWE-200, CWE-863 |\n| 3 | **License-validation bypass on `onboard-customer`.** The portal customer-onboard endpoint lacked authentication and license-key validation, allowing unauthenticated callers to invoke the onboard flow. | `\u003c 7.2.0` | `\u003e= 7.2.0` | CWE-862 |\n| 4 | **Tenant-scope fail-open on evidence/explain.** Distinct from item 2: when tenant headers were absent, the handler defaulted to a permissive read scope rather than refusing the request. | `\u003c 7.2.0` | `\u003e= 7.2.0` | CWE-862 |\n| 5 | **Internal-service auth fallback bypass in non-Community modes.** Evaluation/Enterprise builds carried an auth fallback path that, under specific request shapes, could be exploited to bypass `apiAuthMiddleware`. | `\u003c 7.2.0` | `\u003e= 7.2.0` | CWE-863 |\n| 6 | **Login timing / org-existence disclosure on the portal.** The login handler returned different timing and response bodies for invalid-org vs invalid-password, allowing org enumeration. | `\u003c 7.1.3` | `\u003e= 7.1.3` | CWE-208 |\n| 7 | **Portal DoS via unbounded request body.** The portal accepted unbounded request bodies, allowing memory-exhaustion attacks. Capped at 1 MiB. | `\u003c 7.1.5` | `\u003e= 7.1.5` | CWE-770 |\n| 8 | **SQL-injection enforcement regression on `try.getaxonflow.com`.** The Community SaaS hosted endpoint inherited the `warn` SQLi default introduced in v6.2.0, allowing SQL-injection-shaped requests to pass governance to the LLM. Self-hosted deployments were unaffected unless they manually changed the default. | `\u003c 7.5.0` (try.getaxonflow.com only) | `\u003e= 7.5.0` | CWE-89 |\n\n## Remediation\n\nUpgrade to AxonFlow platform **v7.5.0** or later. No configuration changes required \u2014 the platform is purely additive and existing API/SDK callers continue to work.\n\nFor users who can\u0027t upgrade immediately, item-specific mitigations:\n\n- **Items 1\u20135:** ensure the agent middleware sets `X-Org-ID` / `X-Tenant-ID` from authenticated identity at the ingress, never accepting body-supplied identity.\n- **Item 8 (Community SaaS):** `SQLI_ACTION=block` can be set explicitly via the agent task definition; v7.5.0 makes this the default.\n\n## Resources\n\n- AxonFlow v7.5.0 CHANGELOG entry: https://github.com/getaxonflow/axonflow/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md\n- AxonFlow v7.5.0 GitHub Release: https://github.com/getaxonflow/axonflow/releases/tag/v7.5.0\n\n## Credit\n\nIdentified by AxonFlow internal security review during the April 2026 quality-freeze epic.",
"id": "GHSA-9h64-2846-7x7f",
"modified": "2026-05-06T23:13:27Z",
"published": "2026-05-06T23:13:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/getaxonflow/axonflow/security/advisories/GHSA-9h64-2846-7x7f"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/getaxonflow/axonflow"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/getaxonflow/axonflow/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/getaxonflow/axonflow/releases/tag/v7.5.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Axonflow fixed bugs by implementing multi-tenant isolation and access-control hardening"
}
GHSA-9H84-QMV7-982P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-14 00:01 – Updated: 2025-08-14 17:14A Helm contributor discovered that it was possible to craft a JSON Schema file in a manner which could cause Helm to use all available memory and have an out of memory (OOM) termination.
Impact
A malicious chart can point $ref in values.schema.json to a device (e.g. /dev/*) or other problem file which could cause Helm to use all available memory and have an out of memory (OOM) termination.
Patches
This issue has been resolved in Helm v3.18.5.
Workarounds
Make sure that all Helm charts that are being loaded into Helm doesn't have any reference of $ref pointing to /dev/zero.
References
Helm's security policy is spelled out in detail in our SECURITY document.
Credits
Disclosed by Jakub Ciolek at AlphaSense.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "helm.sh/helm/v3"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.18.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-55199"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-08-14T00:01:34Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-14T00:15:27Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A Helm contributor discovered that it was possible to craft a JSON Schema file in a manner which could cause Helm to use all available memory and have an out of memory (OOM) termination.\n\n### Impact\nA malicious chart can point `$ref` in _values.schema.json_ to a device (e.g. `/dev/*`) or other problem file which could cause Helm to use all available memory and have an out of memory (OOM) termination.\n\n### Patches\nThis issue has been resolved in Helm v3.18.5.\n\n### Workarounds\nMake sure that all Helm charts that are being loaded into Helm doesn\u0027t have any reference of `$ref` pointing to `/dev/zero`.\n\n### References\nHelm\u0027s security policy is spelled out in detail in our [SECURITY](https://github.com/helm/community/blob/master/SECURITY.md) document.\n\n### Credits\nDisclosed by Jakub Ciolek at AlphaSense.",
"id": "GHSA-9h84-qmv7-982p",
"modified": "2025-08-14T17:14:53Z",
"published": "2025-08-14T00:01:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/helm/helm/security/advisories/GHSA-9h84-qmv7-982p"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-55199"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/helm/helm/commit/b78692c18f0fb38fe5ba4571a674de067a4c53a5"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/helm/helm"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Helm Charts with Specific JSON Schema Values Can Cause Memory Exhaustion"
}
GHSA-9HHR-R3J8-H675
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-08 00:00 – Updated: 2024-03-27 15:30A malicious server can serve excessive amounts of Set-Cookie: headers in a HTTP response to curl and curl < 7.84.0 stores all of them. A sufficiently large amount of (big) cookies make subsequent HTTP requests to this, or other servers to which the cookies match, create requests that become larger than the threshold that curl uses internally to avoid sending crazy large requests (1048576 bytes) and instead returns an error.This denial state might remain for as long as the same cookies are kept, match and haven't expired. Due to cookie matching rules, a server on foo.example.com can set cookies that also would match for bar.example.com, making it it possible for a "sister server" to effectively cause a denial of service for a sibling site on the same second level domain using this method.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-32205"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-07T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A malicious server can serve excessive amounts of `Set-Cookie:` headers in a HTTP response to curl and curl \u003c 7.84.0 stores all of them. A sufficiently large amount of (big) cookies make subsequent HTTP requests to this, or other servers to which the cookies match, create requests that become larger than the threshold that curl uses internally to avoid sending crazy large requests (1048576 bytes) and instead returns an error.This denial state might remain for as long as the same cookies are kept, match and haven\u0027t expired. Due to cookie matching rules, a server on `foo.example.com` can set cookies that also would match for `bar.example.com`, making it it possible for a \"sister server\" to effectively cause a denial of service for a sibling site on the same second level domain using this method.",
"id": "GHSA-9hhr-r3j8-h675",
"modified": "2024-03-27T15:30:36Z",
"published": "2022-07-08T00:00:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-32205"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/1569946"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-333517.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BEV6BR4MTI3CEWK2YU2HQZUW5FAS3FEY"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BEV6BR4MTI3CEWK2YU2HQZUW5FAS3FEY"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202212-01"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20220915-0003"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/kb/HT213488"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2022/dsa-5197"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2022/Oct/28"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2022/Oct/41"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Mitigation
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
Mitigation
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation
- Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
- The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
- The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
- recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays
- uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
Mitigation
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
Mitigation MIT-38.1
- If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery.
- Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
Mitigation MIT-47
Strategy: Resource Limitation
- Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems.
- When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users.
- Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).
CAPEC-125: Flooding
An adversary consumes the resources of a target by rapidly engaging in a large number of interactions with the target. This type of attack generally exposes a weakness in rate limiting or flow. When successful this attack prevents legitimate users from accessing the service and can cause the target to crash. This attack differs from resource depletion through leaks or allocations in that the latter attacks do not rely on the volume of requests made to the target but instead focus on manipulation of the target's operations. The key factor in a flooding attack is the number of requests the adversary can make in a given period of time. The greater this number, the more likely an attack is to succeed against a given target.
CAPEC-130: Excessive Allocation
An adversary causes the target to allocate excessive resources to servicing the attackers' request, thereby reducing the resources available for legitimate services and degrading or denying services. Usually, this attack focuses on memory allocation, but any finite resource on the target could be the attacked, including bandwidth, processing cycles, or other resources. This attack does not attempt to force this allocation through a large number of requests (that would be Resource Depletion through Flooding) but instead uses one or a small number of requests that are carefully formatted to force the target to allocate excessive resources to service this request(s). Often this attack takes advantage of a bug in the target to cause the target to allocate resources vastly beyond what would be needed for a normal request.
CAPEC-147: XML Ping of the Death
An attacker initiates a resource depletion attack where a large number of small XML messages are delivered at a sufficiently rapid rate to cause a denial of service or crash of the target. Transactions such as repetitive SOAP transactions can deplete resources faster than a simple flooding attack because of the additional resources used by the SOAP protocol and the resources necessary to process SOAP messages. The transactions used are immaterial as long as they cause resource utilization on the target. In other words, this is a normal flooding attack augmented by using messages that will require extra processing on the target.
CAPEC-197: Exponential Data Expansion
An adversary submits data to a target application which contains nested exponential data expansion to produce excessively large output. Many data format languages allow the definition of macro-like structures that can be used to simplify the creation of complex structures. However, this capability can be abused to create excessive demands on a processor's CPU and memory. A small number of nested expansions can result in an exponential growth in demands on memory.
CAPEC-229: Serialized Data Parameter Blowup
This attack exploits certain serialized data parsers (e.g., XML, YAML, etc.) which manage data in an inefficient manner. The attacker crafts an serialized data file with multiple configuration parameters in the same dataset. In a vulnerable parser, this results in a denial of service condition where CPU resources are exhausted because of the parsing algorithm. The weakness being exploited is tied to parser implementation and not language specific.
CAPEC-230: Serialized Data with Nested Payloads
Applications often need to transform data in and out of a data format (e.g., XML and YAML) by using a parser. It may be possible for an adversary to inject data that may have an adverse effect on the parser when it is being processed. Many data format languages allow the definition of macro-like structures that can be used to simplify the creation of complex structures. By nesting these structures, causing the data to be repeatedly substituted, an adversary can cause the parser to consume more resources while processing, causing excessive memory consumption and CPU utilization.
CAPEC-231: Oversized Serialized Data Payloads
An adversary injects oversized serialized data payloads into a parser during data processing to produce adverse effects upon the parser such as exhausting system resources and arbitrary code execution.
CAPEC-469: HTTP DoS
An attacker performs flooding at the HTTP level to bring down only a particular web application rather than anything listening on a TCP/IP connection. This denial of service attack requires substantially fewer packets to be sent which makes DoS harder to detect. This is an equivalent of SYN flood in HTTP. The idea is to keep the HTTP session alive indefinitely and then repeat that hundreds of times. This attack targets resource depletion weaknesses in web server software. The web server will wait to attacker's responses on the initiated HTTP sessions while the connection threads are being exhausted.
CAPEC-482: TCP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the TCP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service. These attacks exploit the weakness within the TCP protocol where there is some state information for the connection the server needs to maintain. This often involves the use of TCP SYN messages.
CAPEC-486: UDP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the UDP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming the available network bandwidth. Additionally, firewalls often open a port for each UDP connection destined for a service with an open UDP port, meaning the firewalls in essence save the connection state thus the high packet nature of a UDP flood can also overwhelm resources allocated to the firewall. UDP attacks can also target services like DNS or VoIP which utilize these protocols. Additionally, due to the session-less nature of the UDP protocol, the source of a packet is easily spoofed making it difficult to find the source of the attack.
CAPEC-487: ICMP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the ICMP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming the available network bandwidth. A typical attack involves a victim server receiving ICMP packets at a high rate from a wide range of source addresses. Additionally, due to the session-less nature of the ICMP protocol, the source of a packet is easily spoofed making it difficult to find the source of the attack.
CAPEC-488: HTTP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the HTTP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming resources at the application layer such as web services and their infrastructure. These attacks use legitimate session-based HTTP GET requests designed to consume large amounts of a server's resources. Since these are legitimate sessions this attack is very difficult to detect.
CAPEC-489: SSL Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the SSL protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming all the available resources on the server side. These attacks take advantage of the asymmetric relationship between the processing power used by the client and the processing power used by the server to create a secure connection. In this manner the attacker can make a large number of HTTPS requests on a low provisioned machine to tie up a disproportionately large number of resources on the server. The clients then continue to keep renegotiating the SSL connection. When multiplied by a large number of attacking machines, this attack can result in a crash or loss of service to legitimate users.
CAPEC-490: Amplification
An adversary may execute an amplification where the size of a response is far greater than that of the request that generates it. The goal of this attack is to use a relatively few resources to create a large amount of traffic against a target server. To execute this attack, an adversary send a request to a 3rd party service, spoofing the source address to be that of the target server. The larger response that is generated by the 3rd party service is then sent to the target server. By sending a large number of initial requests, the adversary can generate a tremendous amount of traffic directed at the target. The greater the discrepancy in size between the initial request and the final payload delivered to the target increased the effectiveness of this attack.
CAPEC-491: Quadratic Data Expansion
An adversary exploits macro-like substitution to cause a denial of service situation due to excessive memory being allocated to fully expand the data. The result of this denial of service could cause the application to freeze or crash. This involves defining a very large entity and using it multiple times in a single entity substitution. CAPEC-197 is a similar attack pattern, but it is easier to discover and defend against. This attack pattern does not perform multi-level substitution and therefore does not obviously appear to consume extensive resources.
CAPEC-493: SOAP Array Blowup
An adversary may execute an attack on a web service that uses SOAP messages in communication. By sending a very large SOAP array declaration to the web service, the attacker forces the web service to allocate space for the array elements before they are parsed by the XML parser. The attacker message is typically small in size containing a large array declaration of say 1,000,000 elements and a couple of array elements. This attack targets exhaustion of the memory resources of the web service.
CAPEC-494: TCP Fragmentation
An adversary may execute a TCP Fragmentation attack against a target with the intention of avoiding filtering rules of network controls, by attempting to fragment the TCP packet such that the headers flag field is pushed into the second fragment which typically is not filtered.
CAPEC-495: UDP Fragmentation
An attacker may execute a UDP Fragmentation attack against a target server in an attempt to consume resources such as bandwidth and CPU. IP fragmentation occurs when an IP datagram is larger than the MTU of the route the datagram has to traverse. Typically the attacker will use large UDP packets over 1500 bytes of data which forces fragmentation as ethernet MTU is 1500 bytes. This attack is a variation on a typical UDP flood but it enables more network bandwidth to be consumed with fewer packets. Additionally it has the potential to consume server CPU resources and fill memory buffers associated with the processing and reassembling of fragmented packets.
CAPEC-496: ICMP Fragmentation
An attacker may execute a ICMP Fragmentation attack against a target with the intention of consuming resources or causing a crash. The attacker crafts a large number of identical fragmented IP packets containing a portion of a fragmented ICMP message. The attacker these sends these messages to a target host which causes the host to become non-responsive. Another vector may be sending a fragmented ICMP message to a target host with incorrect sizes in the header which causes the host to hang.
CAPEC-528: XML Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using XML messages with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a web service. These attacks are accomplished by sending a large number of XML based requests and letting the service attempt to parse each one. In many cases this type of an attack will result in a XML Denial of Service (XDoS) due to an application becoming unstable, freezing, or crashing.