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.
3049 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-MMM6-54W9-RFQ2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-12 06:30 – Updated: 2025-09-12 06:30An issue has been discovered in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 15.0 before 18.1.6, 18.2 before 18.2.6, and 18.3 before 18.3.2 that could have allowed an authenticated user to stall background job processing by sending specially crafted commit messages, merge request descriptions, or notes.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-1250"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-12T06:15:42Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue has been discovered in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 15.0 before 18.1.6, 18.2 before 18.2.6, and 18.3 before 18.3.2 that could have allowed an authenticated user to stall background job processing by sending specially crafted commit messages, merge request descriptions, or notes.",
"id": "GHSA-mmm6-54w9-rfq2",
"modified": "2025-09-12T06:30:26Z",
"published": "2025-09-12T06:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-1250"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/2903896"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2025/09/10/patch-release-gitlab-18-3-2-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/519335"
}
],
"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-MMR8-FPCP-HG5W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-21 21:30 – Updated: 2025-11-03 21:32Vulnerability in the MySQL Server product of Oracle MySQL (component: Server: Optimizer). Supported versions that are affected are 8.0.40 and prior, 8.4.3 and prior and 9.1.0 and prior. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via multiple protocols to compromise MySQL Server. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of MySQL Server. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 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-2025-21518"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-21T21:15:17Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the MySQL Server product of Oracle MySQL (component: Server: Optimizer). Supported versions that are affected are 8.0.40 and prior, 8.4.3 and prior and 9.1.0 and prior. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via multiple protocols to compromise MySQL Server. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of MySQL Server. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 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-mmr8-fpcp-hg5w",
"modified": "2025-11-03T21:32:19Z",
"published": "2025-01-21T21:30:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-21518"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20250131-0004"
},
{
"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-MMXM-8W33-WC4H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-20 20:52 – Updated: 2025-11-05 20:40Technical Details
Below is a technical explanation of a newly discovered vulnerability in HTTP/2, which we refer to as “MadeYouReset.”
MadeYouReset Vulnerability Summary
The MadeYouReset DDoS vulnerability is a logical vulnerability in the HTTP/2 protocol, that uses malformed HTTP/2 control frames in order to break the max concurrent streams limit - which results in resource exhaustion and distributed denial of service.
Mechanism
The vulnerability uses malformed HTTP/2 control frames, or malformed flow, in order to make the server reset streams created by the client (using the RST_STREAM frame). The vulnerability could be triggered by several primitives, defined by the RFC of HTTP/2 (RFC 9113). The Primitives are: 1. WINDOW_UPDATE frame with an increment of 0 or an increment that makes the window exceed 2^31 - 1. (section 6.9 + 6.9.1) 2. HEADERS or DATA frames sent on a half-closed (remote) stream (which was closed using the END_STREAM flag). (note that for some implementations it's possible a CONTINUATION frame to trigger that as well - but it's very rare). (Section 5.1) 3. PRIORITY frame with a length other than 5. (section 6.3) From our experience, the primitives are likely to exist in the decreasing order listed above. Note that based on the implementation of the library, other primitives (which are not defined by the RFC) might exist - meaning scenarios in which RST_STREAM is not supposed to be sent, but in the implementation it does. On the other hand - some RFC-defined primitives might not work, even though they are defined by the RFC (as some implementations are not fully complying with RFC). For example, some implementations we’ve seen discard the PRIORITY frame - and thus does not return RST_STREAM, and some implementations send GO_AWAY when receiving a WINDOW_UPDATE frame with increment of 0.
The vulnerability takes advantage of a design flaw in the HTTP/2 protocol - While HTTP/2 has a limit on the number of concurrently active streams per connection (which is usually 100, and is set by the parameter SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS), the number of active streams is not counted correctly - when a stream is reset, it is immediately considered not active, and thus unaccounted for in the active streams counter. While the protocol does not count those streams as active, the server’s backend logic still processes and handles the requests that were canceled.
Thus, the attacker can exploit this vulnerability to cause the server to handle an unbounded number of concurrent streams from a client on the same connection. The exploitation is very simple: the client issues a request in a stream, and then sends the control frame that causes the server to send a RST_STREAM.
Attack Flow
For example, a possible attack scenario can be:
1. Attacker opens an HTTP/2 connection to the server.
2. Attacker sends HEADERS frame with END_STREAM flag on a new stream X.
3. Attacker sends WINDOW_UPDATE for stream X with flow-control window of 0.
4. The server receives the WINDOW_UPDATE and immediately sends RST_STREAM for stream X to the client (+ decreases the active streams counter by 1).
The attacker can repeat steps 2+3 as rapidly as it is capable, since the active streams counter never exceeds 1 and the attacker does not need to wait for the response from the server. This leads to resource exhaustion and distributed denial of service vulnerabilities with an impact of: CPU overload and/or memory exhaustion (implementation dependant)
Comparison to Rapid Reset
The vulnerability takes advantage of a design flow in the HTTP/2 protocol that was also used in the Rapid Reset vulnerability (CVE-2023-44487) which was exploited as a zero-day in the wild in August 2023 to October 2023, against multiple services and vendors. The Rapid Reset vulnerability uses RST_STREAM frames sent from the client, in order to create an unbounded amount of concurrent streams - it was given a CVSS score of 7.5. Rapid Reset was mostly mitigated by limiting the number/rate of RST_STREAM sent from the client, which does not mitigate the MadeYouReset attack - since it triggers the server to send a RST_STREAM.
Suggested Mitigations for MadeYouReset
A quick and easy mitigation will be to limit the number/rate of RST_STREAMs sent from the server. It is also possible to limit the number/rate of control frames sent by the client (e.g. WINDOW_UPDATE and PRIORITY), and treat protocol flow errors as a connection error.
As mentioned in our previous message, this is a protocol-level vulnerability that affects multiple vendors and implementations. Given its broad impact, it is the shared responsibility of all parties involved to handle the disclosure process carefully and coordinate mitigations effectively.
If you have any questions, we will be happy to clarify or schedule a Zoom call.
Gal, Anat and Yaniv.
Jetty's Team Notes
Impact
A denial of service vulnerability similar to Rapid Reset, but where the client triggers a reset from the server by sending a malformed or invalid frame.
In particular, this may be triggered by WINDOW_UPDATE frames that are invalid (e.g. with delta==0 or when the delta makes the window exceed 2^31-1).
Patches
Patch has been merged into 12.0.x mainline via https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/pull/13449.
Workarounds
No workarounds apart disabling HTTP/2.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 9.4.57"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.eclipse.jetty.http2:http2-common"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.3.0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.4.58"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 10.0.25"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.eclipse.jetty.http2:http2-common"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "10.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "10.0.26"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 11.0.25"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.eclipse.jetty.http2:http2-common"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "11.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "11.0.26"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 12.0.24"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.eclipse.jetty.http2:jetty-http2-common"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "12.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "12.0.25"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 12.1.0.beta2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.eclipse.jetty.http2:jetty-http2-common"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "12.1.0.alpha0"
},
{
"fixed": "12.1.0.beta3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-5115"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-08-20T20:52:17Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-20T20:15:33Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Technical Details \nBelow is a technical explanation of a newly discovered vulnerability in HTTP/2, which we refer to as \u201cMadeYouReset.\u201d\n\n### MadeYouReset Vulnerability Summary\nThe MadeYouReset DDoS vulnerability is a logical vulnerability in the HTTP/2 protocol, that uses malformed HTTP/2 control frames in order to break the max concurrent streams limit - which results in resource exhaustion and distributed denial of service.\n\n### Mechanism\nThe vulnerability uses malformed HTTP/2 control frames, or malformed flow, in order to make the server reset streams created by the client (using the RST_STREAM frame). \nThe vulnerability could be triggered by several primitives, defined by the RFC of HTTP/2 (RFC 9113). The Primitives are:\n1. WINDOW_UPDATE frame with an increment of 0 or an increment that makes the window exceed 2^31 - 1. (section 6.9 + 6.9.1)\n2. HEADERS or DATA frames sent on a half-closed (remote) stream (which was closed using the END_STREAM flag). (note that for some implementations it\u0027s possible a CONTINUATION frame to trigger that as well - but it\u0027s very rare). (Section 5.1)\n3. PRIORITY frame with a length other than 5. (section 6.3)\nFrom our experience, the primitives are likely to exist in the decreasing order listed above.\nNote that based on the implementation of the library, other primitives (which are not defined by the RFC) might exist - meaning scenarios in which RST_STREAM is not supposed to be sent, but in the implementation it does. On the other hand - some RFC-defined primitives might not work, even though they are defined by the RFC (as some implementations are not fully complying with RFC). For example, some implementations we\u2019ve seen discard the PRIORITY frame - and thus does not return RST_STREAM, and some implementations send GO_AWAY when receiving a WINDOW_UPDATE frame with increment of 0.\n\nThe vulnerability takes advantage of a design flaw in the HTTP/2 protocol - While HTTP/2 has a limit on the number of concurrently active streams per connection (which is usually 100, and is set by the parameter SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS), the number of active streams is not counted correctly - when a stream is reset, it is immediately considered not active, and thus unaccounted for in the active streams counter. \nWhile the protocol does not count those streams as active, the server\u2019s backend logic still processes and handles the requests that were canceled.\n\nThus, the attacker can exploit this vulnerability to cause the server to handle an unbounded number of concurrent streams from a client on the same connection. The exploitation is very simple: the client issues a request in a stream, and then sends the control frame that causes the server to send a RST_STREAM.\n\n### Attack Flow\nFor example, a possible attack scenario can be: \n1. Attacker opens an HTTP/2 connection to the server.\n2. Attacker sends HEADERS frame with END_STREAM flag on a new stream X. \n3. Attacker sends WINDOW_UPDATE for stream X with flow-control window of 0.\n4. The server receives the WINDOW_UPDATE and immediately sends RST_STREAM for stream X to the client (+ decreases the active streams counter by 1).\n\nThe attacker can repeat steps 2+3 as rapidly as it is capable, since the active streams counter never exceeds 1 and the attacker does not need to wait for the response from the server.\nThis leads to resource exhaustion and distributed denial of service vulnerabilities with an impact of: CPU overload and/or memory exhaustion (implementation dependant)\n\n### Comparison to Rapid Reset\nThe vulnerability takes advantage of a design flow in the HTTP/2 protocol that was also used in the Rapid Reset vulnerability (CVE-2023-44487) which was exploited as a zero-day in the wild in August 2023 to October 2023, against multiple services and vendors.\nThe Rapid Reset vulnerability uses RST_STREAM frames sent from the client, in order to create an unbounded amount of concurrent streams - it was given a CVSS score of 7.5.\nRapid Reset was mostly mitigated by limiting the number/rate of RST_STREAM sent from the client, which does not mitigate the MadeYouReset attack - since it triggers the server to send a RST_STREAM.\n\n### Suggested Mitigations for MadeYouReset\nA quick and easy mitigation will be to limit the number/rate of RST_STREAMs sent from the server.\nIt is also possible to limit the number/rate of control frames sent by the client (e.g. WINDOW_UPDATE and PRIORITY), and treat protocol flow errors as a connection error.\n\nAs mentioned in our previous message, this is a protocol-level vulnerability that affects multiple vendors and implementations. Given its broad impact, it is the shared responsibility of all parties involved to handle the disclosure process carefully and coordinate mitigations effectively.\n\n\nIf you have any questions, we will be happy to clarify or schedule a Zoom call.\n\nGal, Anat and Yaniv.\n\n\n\n## Jetty\u0027s Team Notes\n\n### Impact\nA denial of service vulnerability similar to [Rapid Reset](https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/security/advisories/GHSA-c745-7wm4-7738), but where the client triggers a reset from the server by sending a malformed or invalid frame.\nIn particular, this may be triggered by WINDOW_UPDATE frames that are invalid (e.g. with `delta==0` or when the delta makes the window exceed `2^31-1`).\n\n### Patches\nPatch has been merged into 12.0.x mainline via https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/pull/13449.\n\n### Workarounds\nNo workarounds apart disabling HTTP/2.",
"id": "GHSA-mmxm-8w33-wc4h",
"modified": "2025-11-05T20:40:34Z",
"published": "2025-08-20T20:52:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/security/advisories/GHSA-mmxm-8w33-wc4h"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-5115"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/pull/13449"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/commit/f9ee3904788b08203ed62c95a560d951da37bdb1"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/releases/tag/jetty-10.0.26"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/releases/tag/jetty-11.0.26"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/releases/tag/jetty-12.0.25"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/releases/tag/jetty-12.1.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/releases/tag/jetty-9.4.58.v20250814"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/09/msg00014.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/767506"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/08/20/4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/09/17/1"
}
],
"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:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Eclipse Jetty affected by MadeYouReset HTTP/2 vulnerability"
}
GHSA-MP7J-QC5W-4988
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-15 22:08 – Updated: 2026-07-15 22:08Impact
If this library is used in tandem with the permessage-deflate extension, a WebSocket server or client can be made to accept messages that are larger than the configured maximum message size. This is because this limit is checked against the message frames' length headers, which give the size of the compressed data, not the size after decompression. This can lead to applications accepting larger messages than expected and exceeding their intended resource usage.
Patches
The issue has been patched in version 0.7.5, by checking the length of messages after they are processed by incoming extensions. All users should upgrade to this version.
Workarounds
No known workarounds exist.
Acknowledgements
This issue was discovered and reported by Pranjali Thakur, DepthFirst Security Research Team.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "websocket-driver"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.7.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54490"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-15T22:08:17Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nIf this library is used in tandem with the `permessage-deflate` extension, a WebSocket server or client can be made to accept messages that are larger than the configured maximum message size. This is because this limit is checked against the message frames\u0027 length headers, which give the size of the compressed data, not the size after decompression. This can lead to applications accepting larger messages than expected and exceeding their intended resource usage.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe issue has been patched in version 0.7.5, by checking the length of messages after they are processed by incoming extensions. All users should upgrade to this version.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nNo known workarounds exist.\n\n### Acknowledgements\n\nThis issue was discovered and reported by Pranjali Thakur, DepthFirst Security Research Team.",
"id": "GHSA-mp7j-qc5w-4988",
"modified": "2026-07-15T22:08:17Z",
"published": "2026-07-15T22:08:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/faye/websocket-driver-node/security/advisories/GHSA-mp7j-qc5w-4988"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/faye/websocket-driver-node"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/faye/websocket-driver-node/releases/tag/0.7.5"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "websocket-driver: Resource limit bypass via message compression"
}
GHSA-MPFC-53HR-W2MG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:18 – Updated: 2024-04-04 02:50An issue was discovered in libexif before 0.6.22. An unrestricted size in handling Canon EXIF MakerNote data could lead to consumption of large amounts of compute time for decoding EXIF data.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-13114"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-05-21T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in libexif before 0.6.22. An unrestricted size in handling Canon EXIF MakerNote data could lead to consumption of large amounts of compute time for decoding EXIF data.",
"id": "GHSA-mpfc-53hr-w2mg",
"modified": "2024-04-04T02:50:53Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:18:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-13114"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/libexif/libexif/commit/e6a38a1a23ba94d139b1fa2cd4519fdcfe3c9bab"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2020/05/msg00025.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202007-05"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://usn.ubuntu.com/4396-1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2020-06/msg00017.html"
}
],
"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-MPFF-353Q-5493
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-22 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:01An issue in the cs_bind_ubat component of MonetDB Server v11.45.17 and v11.46.0 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via crafted SQL statements.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-36368"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-22T14:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue in the cs_bind_ubat component of MonetDB Server v11.45.17 and v11.46.0 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via crafted SQL statements.",
"id": "GHSA-mpff-353q-5493",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:01:01Z",
"published": "2023-06-22T15:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-36368"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/MonetDB/MonetDB/issues/7379"
}
],
"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-MQ63-35PW-H66R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:50 – Updated: 2024-03-21 03:33** DISPUTED ** In libjpeg-turbo 2.0.2, a large amount of memory can be used during processing of an invalid progressive JPEG image containing incorrect width and height values in the image header. NOTE: the vendor's expectation, for use cases in which this memory usage would be a denial of service, is that the application should interpret libjpeg warnings as fatal errors (aborting decompression) and/or set limits on resource consumption or image sizes.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-13960"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-07-18T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "** DISPUTED ** In libjpeg-turbo 2.0.2, a large amount of memory can be used during processing of an invalid progressive JPEG image containing incorrect width and height values in the image header. NOTE: the vendor\u0027s expectation, for use cases in which this memory usage would be a denial of service, is that the application should interpret libjpeg warnings as fatal errors (aborting decompression) and/or set limits on resource consumption or image sizes.",
"id": "GHSA-mq63-35pw-h66r",
"modified": "2024-03-21T03:33:41Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:50:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-13960"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/libjpeg-turbo/libjpeg-turbo/issues/337"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://libjpeg-turbo.org/pmwiki/uploads/About/TwoIssueswiththeJPEGStandard.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MQ6C-FH97-4GWV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2018-07-18 21:20 – Updated: 2023-03-01 01:17Affected versions of fastify are vulnerable to a denial of service when processing a request with Content-Type set to application/json and a very large payload.
Recommendation
Update to version 0.38.0 or later.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.37.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "fastify"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.38.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-3711"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2020-06-16T21:46:52Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2018-06-07T02:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Affected versions of `fastify` are vulnerable to a denial of service when processing a request with `Content-Type` set to `application/json` and a very large payload.\n\n\n## Recommendation\n\nUpdate to version 0.38.0 or later.",
"id": "GHSA-mq6c-fh97-4gwv",
"modified": "2023-03-01T01:17:45Z",
"published": "2018-07-18T21:20:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-3711"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/fastify/fastify/pull/627"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/fastify/fastify/commit/fabd2a011f2ffbb877394abe699f549513ffbd76"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/303632"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-mq6c-fh97-4gwv"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/564"
}
],
"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": "Denial of Service vulnerability with large JSON payloads in fastify"
}
GHSA-MQ88-9QMC-4QC2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-01 00:00 – Updated: 2022-10-04 00:00An issue was discovered in Bento4 1.6.0-639. There ie excessive memory consumption in the function AP4_DataBuffer::ReallocateBuffer in Core/Ap4DataBuffer.cpp.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-41846"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-30T05:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Bento4 1.6.0-639. There ie excessive memory consumption in the function AP4_DataBuffer::ReallocateBuffer in Core/Ap4DataBuffer.cpp.",
"id": "GHSA-mq88-9qmc-4qc2",
"modified": "2022-10-04T00:00:18Z",
"published": "2022-10-01T00:00:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-41846"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/axiomatic-systems/Bento4/issues/342"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/axiomatic-systems/Bento4/issues/770"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MQ99-FG37-H9R3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-20 09:30 – Updated: 2026-02-23 09:31User-controlled operations could have allowed Denial of Service in M-Files Server before 23.4.12528.1
due to uncontrolled memory consumption.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-0383"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-04-20T09:15:08Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "User-controlled operations could have allowed Denial of Service in M-Files Server before 23.4.12528.1\n\n due to uncontrolled memory consumption.",
"id": "GHSA-mq99-fg37-h9r3",
"modified": "2026-02-23T09:31:17Z",
"published": "2023-04-20T09:30:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-0383"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://empower.m-files.com/security-advisories/CVE-2023-0383"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://product.m-files.com/security-advisories/cve-2023-0383"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.m-files.com/about/trust-center/security-advisories/cve-2023-0383"
}
],
"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.