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.
3030 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-QJMX-Q3F9-2PH2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-11-01 19:00 – Updated: 2025-05-06 15:30Xenstore: guests can let run xenstored out of memory T[his CNA information record relates to multiple CVEs; the text explains which aspects/vulnerabilities correspond to which CVE.] Malicious guests can cause xenstored to allocate vast amounts of memory, eventually resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS) of xenstored. There are multiple ways how guests can cause large memory allocations in xenstored: - - by issuing new requests to xenstored without reading the responses, causing the responses to be buffered in memory - - by causing large number of watch events to be generated via setting up multiple xenstore watches and then e.g. deleting many xenstore nodes below the watched path - - by creating as many nodes as allowed with the maximum allowed size and path length in as many transactions as possible - - by accessing many nodes inside a transaction
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-42315"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-11-01T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Xenstore: guests can let run xenstored out of memory T[his CNA information record relates to multiple CVEs; the text explains which aspects/vulnerabilities correspond to which CVE.] Malicious guests can cause xenstored to allocate vast amounts of memory, eventually resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS) of xenstored. There are multiple ways how guests can cause large memory allocations in xenstored: - - by issuing new requests to xenstored without reading the responses, causing the responses to be buffered in memory - - by causing large number of watch events to be generated via setting up multiple xenstore watches and then e.g. deleting many xenstore nodes below the watched path - - by creating as many nodes as allowed with the maximum allowed size and path length in as many transactions as possible - - by accessing many nodes inside a transaction",
"id": "GHSA-qjmx-q3f9-2ph2",
"modified": "2025-05-06T15:30:39Z",
"published": "2022-11-01T19:00:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-42315"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YTMITQBGC23MSDHUCAPCVGLMVXIBXQTQ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YZVXG7OOOXCX6VIPEMLFDPIPUTFAYWPE"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZLI2NPNEH7CNJO3VZGQNOI4M4EWLNKPZ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YTMITQBGC23MSDHUCAPCVGLMVXIBXQTQ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YZVXG7OOOXCX6VIPEMLFDPIPUTFAYWPE"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZLI2NPNEH7CNJO3VZGQNOI4M4EWLNKPZ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2022/dsa-5272"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://xenbits.xenproject.org/xsa/advisory-326.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://xenbits.xen.org/xsa/advisory-326.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QM9F-C3V9-WPHV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-18 20:04 – Updated: 2024-10-18 20:04This security update resolves a vulnerability in the OPC UA .NET Standard Stack that enables an unauthorized attacker to trigger a rapid increase in memory consumption.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "OPCFoundation.NetStandard.Opc.Ua.Core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.05.374.54"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "OPCFoundation.NetStandard.Opc.Ua"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.05.374.54"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-10-18T20:04:51Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "This security update resolves a vulnerability in the OPC UA .NET Standard Stack that enables an unauthorized attacker to trigger a rapid increase in memory consumption.",
"id": "GHSA-qm9f-c3v9-wphv",
"modified": "2024-10-18T20:04:51Z",
"published": "2024-10-18T20:04:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/OPCFoundation/UA-.NETStandard/security/advisories/GHSA-qm9f-c3v9-wphv"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/OPCFoundation/UA-.NETStandard"
}
],
"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": "Security Update for the OPC UA .NET Standard Stack"
}
GHSA-QMF9-6JQF-J8FQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-02 06:30 – Updated: 2024-09-20 16:05An issue was discovered in Django 3.2 before 3.2.23, 4.1 before 4.1.13, and 4.2 before 4.2.7. The NFKC normalization is slow on Windows. As a consequence, django.contrib.auth.forms.UsernameField is subject to a potential DoS (denial of service) attack via certain inputs with a very large number of Unicode characters.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Django"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.2a1"
},
{
"fixed": "3.2.23"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Django"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.1a1"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.13"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Django"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.2a1"
},
{
"fixed": "4.2.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-46695"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-11-02T21:26:14Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-02T06:15:08Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Django 3.2 before 3.2.23, 4.1 before 4.1.13, and 4.2 before 4.2.7. The NFKC normalization is slow on Windows. As a consequence, django.contrib.auth.forms.UsernameField is subject to a potential DoS (denial of service) attack via certain inputs with a very large number of Unicode characters.",
"id": "GHSA-qmf9-6jqf-j8fq",
"modified": "2024-09-20T16:05:09Z",
"published": "2023-11-02T06:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-46695"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/django/django/commit/048a9ebb6ea468426cb4e57c71572cbbd975517f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/django/django/commit/4965bfdde2e5a5c883685019e57d123a3368a75e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/django/django/commit/f9a7fb8466a7ba4857eaf930099b5258f3eafb2b"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.2/releases/security"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/django/django"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/django/PYSEC-2023-222.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/django-announce"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21forum/django-announce"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20231214-0001"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2023/nov/01/security-releases"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Django potential denial of service vulnerability in UsernameField on Windows"
}
GHSA-QMX9-67MW-5GHQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-24 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 03:39Cesanta MJS v2.20.0 was discovered to contain a SEGV vulnerability via mjs_ffi_cb_free at src/mjs_ffi.c. This vulnerability can lead to a Denial of Service (DoS).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-29570"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-04-24T14:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cesanta MJS v2.20.0 was discovered to contain a SEGV vulnerability via mjs_ffi_cb_free at src/mjs_ffi.c. This vulnerability can lead to a Denial of Service (DoS).",
"id": "GHSA-qmx9-67mw-5ghq",
"modified": "2024-04-04T03:39:16Z",
"published": "2023-04-24T15:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-29570"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cesanta/mjs/issues/240"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/z1r00/fuzz_vuln/blob/main/mjs/SEGV/mjs_fii2/readme.md"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QP55-WF2P-VRJ5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-03 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-09 00:00Teamplus Pro community discussion has an ‘allocation of resource without limits or throttling’ vulnerability on thread subject field. A remote attacker with general user privilege posting a thread subject with large content can cause the server to allocate too much memory, leading to missing partial post content and disrupt partial service.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-35221"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-02T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Teamplus Pro community discussion has an \u2018allocation of resource without limits or throttling\u2019 vulnerability on thread subject field. A remote attacker with general user privilege posting a thread subject with large content can cause the server to allocate too much memory, leading to missing partial post content and disrupt partial service.",
"id": "GHSA-qp55-wf2p-vrj5",
"modified": "2022-08-09T00:00:23Z",
"published": "2022-08-03T00:00:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-35221"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.twcert.org.tw/tw/cp-132-6360-7bf50-1.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QPGC-XH7J-52Q8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-24 00:00 – Updated: 2022-09-01 22:19The package node-opcua before 2.74.0 are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) by sending a specifically crafted OPC UA message with a special OPC UA NodeID, when the requested memory allocation exceeds the v8’s memory limit.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "node-opcua"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.74.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-25231"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-09-01T22:19:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-23T05:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The package node-opcua before 2.74.0 are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) by sending a specifically crafted OPC UA message with a special OPC UA NodeID, when the requested memory allocation exceeds the v8\u2019s memory limit.",
"id": "GHSA-qpgc-xh7j-52q8",
"modified": "2022-09-01T22:19:48Z",
"published": "2022-08-24T00:00:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-25231"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/node-opcua/node-opcua/pull/1182"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/node-opcua/node-opcua/commit/7b5044b3f5866fbedc3efabd05e407352c07bd2f"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/node-opcua/node-opcua"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-NODEOPCUA-2988724"
}
],
"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": "node-opcua DoS vulnerability via message with memory allocation that exceeds v8\u0027s memory limit"
}
GHSA-QPP6-F3QJ-RGGQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-22 03:30 – Updated: 2025-12-20 02:46Liferay Portal 7.4.0 through 7.4.3.132, and Liferay DXP 2025.Q1.0 through 2025.Q1.4, 2024.Q4.0 through 2024.Q4.7, 2024.Q3.1 through 2024.Q3.13, 2024.Q2.0 through 2024.Q2.13, 2024.Q1.1 through 2024.Q1.15 and 7.4 GA through update 92 allow users to upload an unlimited amount of files through the object entries attachment fields, the files are stored in the document_library allowing an attacker to cause a potential DDoS.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "com.liferay.portal:release.portal.bom"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "7.4.0-ga1"
},
{
"last_affected": "7.4.3.132-ga132"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-43752"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-08-22T16:51:06Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-22T01:16:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Liferay Portal 7.4.0 through 7.4.3.132, and Liferay DXP 2025.Q1.0 through 2025.Q1.4, 2024.Q4.0 through 2024.Q4.7, 2024.Q3.1 through 2024.Q3.13, 2024.Q2.0 through 2024.Q2.13, 2024.Q1.1 through 2024.Q1.15 and 7.4 GA through update 92 allow users to upload an unlimited amount of files through the object entries attachment fields, the files are stored in the document_library allowing an attacker to cause a potential DDoS.",
"id": "GHSA-qpp6-f3qj-rggq",
"modified": "2025-12-20T02:46:22Z",
"published": "2025-08-22T03:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-43752"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/liferay/liferay-portal/commit/45dda30252d83912307491d8ed8802577871fa25"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/liferay/liferay-portal/commit/f3e4723acdf15d3f690d401d6eb6a5653e5be391"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/liferay/liferay-portal/commit/fffed67b3fd1cc6071fd25a9b104b7691ffea2f8"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/liferay/liferay-portal"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://liferay.atlassian.net/browse/LPE-18188"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://liferay.dev/portal/security/known-vulnerabilities/-/asset_publisher/jekt/content/CVE-2025-43752"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:L/SA:L",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Liferay Portal\u0027s Unlimited File Upload Could Result in DoS"
}
GHSA-QPV7-Q7M6-J79V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-02 00:00 – Updated: 2022-04-09 00:00IBM App Connect Enterprise Certified Container Dashboard UI (IBM App Connect Enterprise Certified Container 1.5, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, and 3.1) may be vulnerable to denial of service due to excessive rate limiting.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-22404"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-04-01T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM App Connect Enterprise Certified Container Dashboard UI (IBM App Connect Enterprise Certified Container 1.5, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, and 3.1) may be vulnerable to denial of service due to excessive rate limiting.",
"id": "GHSA-qpv7-q7m6-j79v",
"modified": "2022-04-09T00:00:43Z",
"published": "2022-04-02T00:00:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-22404"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/222575"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6568359"
}
],
"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-QPX3-9565-5XWM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-11 21:04 – Updated: 2022-07-19 22:28Impact
The CloudCore Router does not impose a limit on the size of responses to requests made by the REST handler. An attacker could use this weakness to make a request that will return an HTTP response with a large body and cause DoS of CloudCore. In the HTTP Handler API, the rest handler makes a request to a pre-specified handle. The handle will return an HTTP response that is then read into memory. The consequence of the exhaustion is that CloudCore will be in a denial of service.
Only an authenticated user of the cloud can make an attack. It will be affected only when users enable router module in the config file cloudcore.yaml as below.
modules:
...
router:
enable: true
Patches
This bug has been fixed in Kubeedge 1.11.1, 1.10.2, 1.9.4. Users should update to these versions to resolve the issue.
Workarounds
Disable the router module in the config file cloudcore.yaml.
References
NA
Credits
Thanks David Korczynski and Adam Korczynski of ADA Logics for responsibly disclosing this issue in accordance with the kubeedge security policy during a security audit sponsored by CNCF and facilitated by OSTIF.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in KubeEdge repo * To make a vulnerability report, email your vulnerability to the private cncf-kubeedge-security@lists.cncf.io list with the security details and the details expected for KubeEdge bug reports.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.11.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.11.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.10.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.10.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.9.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-31078"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-07-11T21:04:51Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-11T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nThe CloudCore Router does not impose a limit on the size of responses to requests made by the REST handler. An attacker could use this weakness to make a request that will return an HTTP response with a large body and cause DoS of CloudCore. In the HTTP Handler API, the rest handler makes a request to a pre-specified handle. The handle will return an HTTP response that is then read into memory. The consequence of the exhaustion is that CloudCore will be in a denial of service.\nOnly an authenticated user of the cloud can make an attack. It will be affected only when users enable `router` module in the config file `cloudcore.yaml` as below.\n```\nmodules:\n ...\n router:\n enable: true\n```\n\n### Patches\nThis bug has been fixed in Kubeedge 1.11.1, 1.10.2, 1.9.4. Users should update to these versions to resolve the issue.\n\n### Workarounds\nDisable the router module in the config file `cloudcore.yaml`.\n\n### References\nNA\n\n### Credits\nThanks David Korczynski and Adam Korczynski of ADA Logics for responsibly disclosing this issue in accordance with the [kubeedge security policy](https://github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge/security/policy) during a security audit sponsored by CNCF and facilitated by OSTIF.\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [KubeEdge repo](https://github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge/issues/new/choose)\n* To make a vulnerability report, email your vulnerability to the private [cncf-kubeedge-security@lists.cncf.io](mailto:cncf-kubeedge-security@lists.cncf.io) list with the security details and the details expected for [KubeEdge bug reports](https://github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge/blob/master/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.md).\n",
"id": "GHSA-qpx3-9565-5xwm",
"modified": "2022-07-19T22:28:27Z",
"published": "2022-07-11T21:04:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge/security/advisories/GHSA-qpx3-9565-5xwm"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-31078"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "KubeEdge CloudCore Router memory exhaustion vulnerability"
}
GHSA-QPX9-HPMF-5GMW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-03 17:46 – Updated: 2026-05-05 22:01Impact
In simple words, some programs that use _.flatten or _.isEqual could be made to crash. Someone who wants to do harm may be able to do this on purpose. This can only be done if the program has special properties. It only works in Underscore versions up to 1.13.7. A more detailed explanation follows.
In affected versions of Underscore, the _.flatten and _.isEqual functions use recursion without a depth limit. Under very specific conditions, detailed below, an attacker could exploit this in a Denial of Service (DoS) attack by triggering a stack overflow.
A proof of concept (PoC) for this type of attack with _.isEqual:
const _ = require('underscore');
// build JSON string for nested object ~4500 levels deep
// (for this to be an attack, the JSON would have to come from
// a request or other untrusted input)
let json = '';
for (let i = 0; i < 4500; i++) json += '{"n":';
json += '"x"';
for (let i = 0; i < 4500; i++) json += '}';
// construct two distinct objects with equal shape from the above JSON
const a = JSON.parse(json);
const b = JSON.parse(json);
_.isEqual(a, b); // RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
A proof of concept (PoC) for this type of attack with _.flatten:
const _ = require('underscore');
// build nested array ~4500 levels deep
// (like with _.isEqual, this nested array would have to be sourced
// from an untrusted external source for it to be an attack)
let nested = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 4500; i++) nested = [nested];
_.flatten(nested); // RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
An application that crashes because of this can be restarted, so the bug is most relevant to applications for which continued operation is important, such as server applications. Furthermore, an application is only vulnerable to this type of attack if ALL of the following conditions are met:
- Untrusted input must be used to create a recursive datastructure, for example using
JSON.parse, with no enforced depth limit. - The datastructure thus created must be passed to
_.flattenor_.isEqual. - In the case of
_.flatten, the vulnerability can only be exploited if it is possible for a remote client to prepare a datastructure that consists of arrays at all levels AND if no finite depth limit is passed as the second argument to_.flatten. - In the case of
_.isEqual, the vulnerability can only be exploited if there exists a code path in which two distinct datastructures that were submitted by the same remote client are compared using_.isEqual. For example, if a client submits data that are stored in a database, and the same client can later submit another datastructure that is then compared to the data that were saved in the database previously, OR if a client submits a single request, but its data are parsed twice, creating two non-identical but equivalent datastructures that are then compared. - Exceptions originating from the call to
_.flattenor_.isEqual, as a result of a stack overflow, are not being caught.
All versions of Underscore up to and including 1.13.7 are affected by this weakness.
Patches
The problem has been patched in version 1.13.8. Upgrading to 1.13.8 or later completely prevents exploitation.
Note: historically, there have been breaking changes in minor releases of Underscore, especially between versions 1.6 and 1.9. However, upgrading from version 1.9 or later to any later 1.x version should be feasible with little or no effort for all users.
Workarounds
A workaround that works for both functions is to enforce a depth limit on the datastructure that is created from untrusted input. A limit of 1000 levels should prevent attacks from being successful on most systems. In systems with highly constrained hardware, we recommend lower limits, for example 100 levels.
Another possible workaround that only works for _.flatten, is to pass a second argument that limits the flattening depth to 1000 or less.
References
- https://github.com/jashkenas/underscore/issues/3011
- https://underscorejs.org/#1.13.8
- https://underscorejs.org/#flatten
- https://underscorejs.org/#isEqual
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.13.7"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "underscore"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.13.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-27601"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-674",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-03T17:46:06Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-03T23:15:55Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nIn simple words, some programs that use `_.flatten` or `_.isEqual` could be made to crash. Someone who wants to do harm may be able to do this on purpose. This can only be done if the program has special properties. It only works in Underscore versions up to 1.13.7. A more detailed explanation follows.\n\nIn affected versions of Underscore, the `_.flatten` and `_.isEqual` functions use recursion without a depth limit. Under very specific conditions, detailed below, an attacker could exploit this in a Denial of Service (DoS) attack by triggering a stack overflow.\n\nA proof of concept (PoC) for this type of attack with `_.isEqual`:\n\n```js\nconst _ = require(\u0027underscore\u0027);\n\n// build JSON string for nested object ~4500 levels deep\n// (for this to be an attack, the JSON would have to come from\n// a request or other untrusted input)\nlet json = \u0027\u0027;\nfor (let i = 0; i \u003c 4500; i++) json += \u0027{\"n\":\u0027;\njson += \u0027\"x\"\u0027;\nfor (let i = 0; i \u003c 4500; i++) json += \u0027}\u0027;\n\n// construct two distinct objects with equal shape from the above JSON\nconst a = JSON.parse(json);\nconst b = JSON.parse(json);\n\n_.isEqual(a, b); // RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded\n```\n\nA proof of concept (PoC) for this type of attack with `_.flatten`:\n\n```js\nconst _ = require(\u0027underscore\u0027);\n\n// build nested array ~4500 levels deep\n// (like with _.isEqual, this nested array would have to be sourced\n// from an untrusted external source for it to be an attack)\nlet nested = [];\nfor (let i = 0; i \u003c 4500; i++) nested = [nested];\n\n_.flatten(nested); // RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded\n```\n\nAn application that crashes because of this can be restarted, so the bug is most relevant to applications for which continued operation is important, such as server applications. Furthermore, an application is only vulnerable to this type of attack if ALL of the following conditions are met:\n\n- Untrusted input must be used to create a recursive datastructure, for example using `JSON.parse`, with no enforced depth limit.\n- The datastructure thus created must be passed to `_.flatten` or `_.isEqual`.\n- In the case of `_.flatten`, the vulnerability can only be exploited if it is possible for a remote client to prepare a datastructure that consists of arrays at all levels AND if no finite depth limit is passed as the second argument to `_.flatten`.\n- In the case of `_.isEqual`, the vulnerability can only be exploited if there exists a code path in which two distinct datastructures that were submitted by the same remote client are compared using `_.isEqual`. For example, if a client submits data that are stored in a database, and the same client can later submit another datastructure that is then compared to the data that were saved in the database previously, OR if a client submits a single request, but its data are parsed twice, creating two non-identical but equivalent datastructures that are then compared.\n- Exceptions originating from the call to `_.flatten` or `_.isEqual`, as a result of a stack overflow, are not being caught.\n\nAll versions of Underscore up to and including 1.13.7 are affected by this weakness.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe problem has been patched in version 1.13.8. Upgrading to 1.13.8 or later completely prevents exploitation.\n\n**Note:** historically, there have been breaking changes in minor releases of Underscore, especially between versions 1.6 and 1.9. However, upgrading from version 1.9 or later to any later 1.x version should be feasible with little or no effort for all users.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nA workaround that works for both functions is to enforce a depth limit on the datastructure that is created from untrusted input. A limit of 1000 levels should prevent attacks from being successful on most systems. In systems with highly constrained hardware, we recommend lower limits, for example 100 levels.\n\nAnother possible workaround that only works for `_.flatten`, is to pass a second argument that limits the flattening depth to 1000 or less.\n\n### References\n\n- https://github.com/jashkenas/underscore/issues/3011\n- https://underscorejs.org/#1.13.8\n- https://underscorejs.org/#flatten\n- https://underscorejs.org/#isEqual",
"id": "GHSA-qpx9-hpmf-5gmw",
"modified": "2026-05-05T22:01:45Z",
"published": "2026-03-03T17:46:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jashkenas/underscore/security/advisories/GHSA-qpx9-hpmf-5gmw"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-27601"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jashkenas/underscore/issues/3011"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jashkenas/underscore/commit/411e222eb0ca5d570cc4f6315c02c05b830ed2b4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jashkenas/underscore/commit/a6e23ae9647461ec33ad9f92a2ecfc220eea0a84"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jashkenas/underscore"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://underscorejs.org/#1.13.8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://underscorejs.org/#flatten"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://underscorejs.org/#isEqual"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Underscore has unlimited recursion in _.flatten and _.isEqual, potential for DoS attack"
}
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.