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-QVFW-RQCG-JH9G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-17 09:30 – Updated: 2025-11-04 00:30In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Fix overrunning reservations in ringbuf
The BPF ring buffer internally is implemented as a power-of-2 sized circular buffer, with two logical and ever-increasing counters: consumer_pos is the consumer counter to show which logical position the consumer consumed the data, and producer_pos which is the producer counter denoting the amount of data reserved by all producers.
Each time a record is reserved, the producer that "owns" the record will successfully advance producer counter. In user space each time a record is read, the consumer of the data advanced the consumer counter once it finished processing. Both counters are stored in separate pages so that from user space, the producer counter is read-only and the consumer counter is read-write.
One aspect that simplifies and thus speeds up the implementation of both producers and consumers is how the data area is mapped twice contiguously back-to-back in the virtual memory, allowing to not take any special measures for samples that have to wrap around at the end of the circular buffer data area, because the next page after the last data page would be first data page again, and thus the sample will still appear completely contiguous in virtual memory.
Each record has a struct bpf_ringbuf_hdr { u32 len; u32 pg_off; } header for
book-keeping the length and offset, and is inaccessible to the BPF program.
Helpers like bpf_ringbuf_reserve() return (void *)hdr + BPF_RINGBUF_HDR_SZ
for the BPF program to use. Bing-Jhong and Muhammad reported that it is however
possible to make a second allocated memory chunk overlapping with the first
chunk and as a result, the BPF program is now able to edit first chunk's
header.
For example, consider the creation of a BPF_MAP_TYPE_RINGBUF map with size
of 0x4000. Next, the consumer_pos is modified to 0x3000 /before/ a call to
bpf_ringbuf_reserve() is made. This will allocate a chunk A, which is in
[0x0,0x3008], and the BPF program is able to edit [0x8,0x3008]. Now, lets
allocate a chunk B with size 0x3000. This will succeed because consumer_pos
was edited ahead of time to pass the new_prod_pos - cons_pos > rb->mask
check. Chunk B will be in range [0x3008,0x6010], and the BPF program is able
to edit [0x3010,0x6010]. Due to the ring buffer memory layout mentioned
earlier, the ranges [0x0,0x4000] and [0x4000,0x8000] point to the same data
pages. This means that chunk B at [0x4000,0x4008] is chunk A's header.
bpf_ringbuf_submit() / bpf_ringbuf_discard() use the header's pg_off to then
locate the bpf_ringbuf itself via bpf_ringbuf_restore_from_rec(). Once chunk
B modified chunk A's header, then bpf_ringbuf_commit() refers to the wrong
page and could cause a crash.
Fix it by calculating the oldest pending_pos and check whether the range from the oldest outstanding record to the newest would span beyond the ring buffer size. If that is the case, then reject the request. We've tested with the ring buffer benchmark in BPF selftests (./benchs/run_bench_ringbufs.sh) before/after the fix and while it seems a bit slower on some benchmarks, it is still not significantly enough to matter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-41009"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-07-17T07:15:01Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nbpf: Fix overrunning reservations in ringbuf\n\nThe BPF ring buffer internally is implemented as a power-of-2 sized circular\nbuffer, with two logical and ever-increasing counters: consumer_pos is the\nconsumer counter to show which logical position the consumer consumed the\ndata, and producer_pos which is the producer counter denoting the amount of\ndata reserved by all producers.\n\nEach time a record is reserved, the producer that \"owns\" the record will\nsuccessfully advance producer counter. In user space each time a record is\nread, the consumer of the data advanced the consumer counter once it finished\nprocessing. Both counters are stored in separate pages so that from user\nspace, the producer counter is read-only and the consumer counter is read-write.\n\nOne aspect that simplifies and thus speeds up the implementation of both\nproducers and consumers is how the data area is mapped twice contiguously\nback-to-back in the virtual memory, allowing to not take any special measures\nfor samples that have to wrap around at the end of the circular buffer data\narea, because the next page after the last data page would be first data page\nagain, and thus the sample will still appear completely contiguous in virtual\nmemory.\n\nEach record has a struct bpf_ringbuf_hdr { u32 len; u32 pg_off; } header for\nbook-keeping the length and offset, and is inaccessible to the BPF program.\nHelpers like bpf_ringbuf_reserve() return `(void *)hdr + BPF_RINGBUF_HDR_SZ`\nfor the BPF program to use. Bing-Jhong and Muhammad reported that it is however\npossible to make a second allocated memory chunk overlapping with the first\nchunk and as a result, the BPF program is now able to edit first chunk\u0027s\nheader.\n\nFor example, consider the creation of a BPF_MAP_TYPE_RINGBUF map with size\nof 0x4000. Next, the consumer_pos is modified to 0x3000 /before/ a call to\nbpf_ringbuf_reserve() is made. This will allocate a chunk A, which is in\n[0x0,0x3008], and the BPF program is able to edit [0x8,0x3008]. Now, lets\nallocate a chunk B with size 0x3000. This will succeed because consumer_pos\nwas edited ahead of time to pass the `new_prod_pos - cons_pos \u003e rb-\u003emask`\ncheck. Chunk B will be in range [0x3008,0x6010], and the BPF program is able\nto edit [0x3010,0x6010]. Due to the ring buffer memory layout mentioned\nearlier, the ranges [0x0,0x4000] and [0x4000,0x8000] point to the same data\npages. This means that chunk B at [0x4000,0x4008] is chunk A\u0027s header.\nbpf_ringbuf_submit() / bpf_ringbuf_discard() use the header\u0027s pg_off to then\nlocate the bpf_ringbuf itself via bpf_ringbuf_restore_from_rec(). Once chunk\nB modified chunk A\u0027s header, then bpf_ringbuf_commit() refers to the wrong\npage and could cause a crash.\n\nFix it by calculating the oldest pending_pos and check whether the range\nfrom the oldest outstanding record to the newest would span beyond the ring\nbuffer size. If that is the case, then reject the request. We\u0027ve tested with\nthe ring buffer benchmark in BPF selftests (./benchs/run_bench_ringbufs.sh)\nbefore/after the fix and while it seems a bit slower on some benchmarks, it\nis still not significantly enough to matter.",
"id": "GHSA-qvfw-rqcg-jh9g",
"modified": "2025-11-04T00:30:58Z",
"published": "2024-07-17T09:30:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-41009"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0f98f40eb1ed52af8b81f61901b6c0289ff59de4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/47416c852f2a04d348ea66ee451cbdcf8119f225"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/511804ab701c0503b72eac08217eabfd366ba069"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/be35504b959f2749bab280f4671e8df96dcf836f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/cfa1a2329a691ffd991fcf7248a57d752e712881"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d1b9df0435bc61e0b44f578846516df8ef476686"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/01/msg00001.html"
}
],
"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-QVQG-6RP8-4P9H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-11 20:40 – Updated: 2023-05-11 20:40Impact
An attacker is able allocate arbitrarily many bytes in the Bitswap server by sending many WANT_BLOCK and or WANT_HAVE requests which are queued in an unbounded queue, with allocations that persist even if the connection is closed.
This affects users accepting or connecting untrusted connections such as by running in the public swarm and no pnet config. Nodes that are not publicly reachable but connects to untrusted nodes are also vulnerable to the untrusted nodes being connected to since libp2p connections are blindly bidirectional.
Patches
- 19feb15833c6f4d6e7f1e1b132efaae96d76481d
boxoupdate in Kubo - GHSA-m974-xj4j-7qv5 patches in boxo
Workarounds
Use PNET, swarm filters or resource manager allows list to block untrusted connections.
Note that using the resource manager will disrupt both client and server features because the bitswap protocol is a message based protocol mixing requests and responses.
References
- GHSA-m974-xj4j-7qv5
- CVE-2023-25568
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/ipfs/kubo"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.19.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-05-11T20:40:16Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nAn attacker is able allocate arbitrarily many bytes in the Bitswap server by sending many `WANT_BLOCK` and or `WANT_HAVE` requests which are queued in an unbounded queue, with allocations that persist even if the connection is closed.\n\nThis affects users accepting or connecting untrusted connections such as by running in the public swarm and no pnet config.\nNodes that are not publicly reachable but connects to untrusted nodes are also vulnerable to the untrusted nodes being connected to since libp2p connections are blindly bidirectional.\n\n### Patches\n- 19feb15833c6f4d6e7f1e1b132efaae96d76481d [`boxo`](https://github.com/ipfs/boxo) update in Kubo\n- GHSA-m974-xj4j-7qv5 patches in boxo\n\n### Workarounds\n\nUse [PNET](https://github.com/ipfs/kubo/blob/master/docs/experimental-features.md#private-networks), [swarm filters](https://github.com/ipfs/kubo/blob/master/docs/config.md#swarmaddrfilters) or [resource manager allows list](https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p/p2p/host/resource-manager#readme-allowlisting-multiaddrs-to-mitigate-eclipse-attacks) to block untrusted connections.\n\nNote that using the resource manager will disrupt both client and server features because the bitswap protocol is a message based protocol mixing requests and responses.\n\n### References\n- GHSA-m974-xj4j-7qv5\n- [CVE-2023-25568](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-25568)",
"id": "GHSA-qvqg-6rp8-4p9h",
"modified": "2023-05-11T20:40:16Z",
"published": "2023-05-11T20:40:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/security/advisories/GHSA-m974-xj4j-7qv5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ipfs/kubo/security/advisories/GHSA-qvqg-6rp8-4p9h"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-25568"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ipfs/kubo"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "github.com/ipfs/kubo affected by DOS Bitswap unbounded persistent memory leak"
}
GHSA-QVXV-3QG9-53CR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-14 09:31 – Updated: 2025-11-03 18:31An unauthanticated remote attacker can perform a DoS of the Modbus service by sending a specific function and sub-function code without affecting the core functionality.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-41704"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-14T08:15:35Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An unauthanticated remote attacker can perform a DoS of the Modbus service by sending a specific function and sub-function code without affecting the core functionality.",
"id": "GHSA-qvxv-3qg9-53cr",
"modified": "2025-11-03T18:31:46Z",
"published": "2025-10-14T09:31:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-41704"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://certvde.com/de/advisories/VDE-2025-072"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Oct/12"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QW69-RQJ8-6QW8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-19 18:15 – Updated: 2023-04-19 18:15Impact
Servlets with multipart support (e.g. annotated with @MultipartConfig) that call HttpServletRequest.getParameter() or HttpServletRequest.getParts() may cause OutOfMemoryError when the client sends a multipart request with a part that has a name but no filename and a very large content.
This happens even with the default settings of fileSizeThreshold=0 which should stream the whole part content to disk.
An attacker client may send a large multipart request and cause the server to throw OutOfMemoryError.
However, the server may be able to recover after the OutOfMemoryError and continue its service -- although it may take some time.
A very large number of parts may cause the same problem.
Patches
Patched in Jetty versions
- 9.4.51.v20230217 - via PR #9345
- 10.0.14 - via PR #9344
- 11.0.14 - via PR #9344
Workarounds
Multipart parameter maxRequestSize must be set to a non-negative value, so the whole multipart content is limited (although still read into memory).
Limiting multipart parameter maxFileSize won't be enough because an attacker can send a large number of parts that summed up will cause memory issues.
References
- https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/issues/9076
- https://github.com/jakartaee/servlet/blob/6.0.0/spec/src/main/asciidoc/servlet-spec-body.adoc#32-file-upload
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.4.51.v20230217"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "10.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "10.0.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "11.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "11.0.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-26048"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-04-19T18:15:45Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-04-18T21:15:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nServlets with multipart support (e.g. annotated with `@MultipartConfig`) that call `HttpServletRequest.getParameter()` or `HttpServletRequest.getParts()` may cause `OutOfMemoryError` when the client sends a multipart request with a part that has a name but no filename and a very large content.\n\nThis happens even with the default settings of `fileSizeThreshold=0` which should stream the whole part content to disk.\n\nAn attacker client may send a large multipart request and cause the server to throw `OutOfMemoryError`.\nHowever, the server may be able to recover after the `OutOfMemoryError` and continue its service -- although it may take some time.\n\nA very large number of parts may cause the same problem.\n\n### Patches\nPatched in Jetty versions\n\n* 9.4.51.v20230217 - via PR #9345\n* 10.0.14 - via PR #9344\n* 11.0.14 - via PR #9344\n\n### Workarounds\nMultipart parameter `maxRequestSize` must be set to a non-negative value, so the whole multipart content is limited (although still read into memory).\nLimiting multipart parameter `maxFileSize` won\u0027t be enough because an attacker can send a large number of parts that summed up will cause memory issues.\n\n### References\n* https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/issues/9076\n* https://github.com/jakartaee/servlet/blob/6.0.0/spec/src/main/asciidoc/servlet-spec-body.adoc#32-file-upload\n",
"id": "GHSA-qw69-rqj8-6qw8",
"modified": "2023-04-19T18:15:45Z",
"published": "2023-04-19T18:15:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/security/advisories/GHSA-qw69-rqj8-6qw8"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-26048"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/issues/9076"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/pull/9344"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/pull/9345"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/releases/tag/jetty-9.4.51.v20230217"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jakartaee/servlet/blob/6.0.0/spec/src/main/asciidoc/servlet-spec-body.adoc#32-file-upload"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2023/09/msg00039.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20230526-0001"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2023/dsa-5507"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "OutOfMemoryError for large multipart without filename in Eclipse Jetty"
}
GHSA-QW8P-FCMV-8662
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-02 00:00 – Updated: 2022-07-13 00:01TOTOLINK T6 V4.1.9cu.5179_B20201015 was discovered to contain a stack overflow via the desc, week, sTime, eTime parameters in the function FUN_004133c4.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-32051"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-01T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "TOTOLINK T6 V4.1.9cu.5179_B20201015 was discovered to contain a stack overflow via the desc, week, sTime, eTime parameters in the function FUN_004133c4.",
"id": "GHSA-qw8p-fcmv-8662",
"modified": "2022-07-13T00:01:52Z",
"published": "2022-07-02T00:00:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-32051"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/d1tto/IoT-vuln/tree/main/Totolink/T6-v2/2.setParentalRules"
}
],
"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-QWMM-Q68H-5QF6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-02 12:30 – Updated: 2026-07-02 12:30An unauthenticated remote attacker can exhaust server memory via the GetEndpoints Discovery Service in open62541. The endpointUrl field of GetEndpointsRequest is not validated for length. An attacker can declare an arbitrarily large string (up to ~4.09 GB via the UInt32 length field) delivered across intermediate chunks without ever sending the final chunk. The server buffers all chunks in RAM indefinitely until the SecureChannel times out. The attack is pre-session and bypasses all encryption configurations.
The issue affects open62541: from 1.4.0 through 1.4.16, from 1.5.0 through 1.5.4, master.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-11946"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-02T12:16:54Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An unauthenticated remote attacker can exhaust\nserver memory via the GetEndpoints Discovery Service in open62541. The\nendpointUrl field of GetEndpointsRequest is not validated for length. An\nattacker can declare an arbitrarily large string (up to ~4.09 GB via the UInt32\nlength field) delivered across intermediate chunks without ever sending the\nfinal chunk. The server buffers all chunks in RAM indefinitely until the\nSecureChannel times out. The attack is\npre-session and bypasses all encryption configurations.\n\n\n\nThe\u00a0issue affects open62541: from 1.4.0 through 1.4.16, from 1.5.0 through 1.5.4, master.",
"id": "GHSA-qwmm-q68h-5qf6",
"modified": "2026-07-02T12:30:59Z",
"published": "2026-07-02T12:30:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-11946"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open62541/open62541/pull/8142"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open62541/open62541/pull/8142/changes/d253818d6c5e870e1db0e360b18138c8bdc809ae"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open62541/open62541"
}
],
"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-QWR8-2WPC-H593
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-03 18:31 – Updated: 2025-10-08 15:32An allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability has been reported to affect Qsync Central. If a remote attacker gains a user account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to prevent other systems, applications, or processes from accessing the same type of resource.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version: Qsync Central 5.0.0.1 ( 2025/07/09 ) and later
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-44007"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-03T18:15:35Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability has been reported to affect Qsync Central. If a remote attacker gains a user account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to prevent other systems, applications, or processes from accessing the same type of resource.\n\nWe have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version:\nQsync Central 5.0.0.1 ( 2025/07/09 ) and later",
"id": "GHSA-qwr8-2wpc-h593",
"modified": "2025-10-08T15:32:26Z",
"published": "2025-10-03T18:31:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-44007"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-25-34"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-QWRW-P888-CC55
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-11 21:30 – Updated: 2026-05-19 18:32A flaw was discovered in libvirt in the XML file processing. More specifically, the parsing of user provided XML files was performed before the ACL checks. A malicious user with limited permissions could exploit this flaw by submitting a specially crafted XML file, causing libvirt to allocate too much memory on the host. The excessive memory consumption could lead to a libvirt process crash on the host, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-12748"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-11T20:15:34Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A flaw was discovered in libvirt in the XML file processing. More specifically, the parsing of user provided XML files was performed before the ACL checks. A malicious user with limited permissions could exploit this flaw by submitting a specially crafted XML file, causing libvirt to allocate too much memory on the host. The excessive memory consumption could lead to a libvirt process crash on the host, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.",
"id": "GHSA-qwrw-p888-cc55",
"modified": "2026-05-19T18:32:01Z",
"published": "2025-11-11T21:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-12748"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:18326"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:18748"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-12748"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2413801"
}
],
"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-QWVM-WQQ8-8J69
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-30 21:06 – Updated: 2025-10-23 20:34Impact
send hooks can spend more gas than what's remained in tx, combined with recursive calls in the wasm contract, can amplify the gas consumption exponentially.
Patches
It's patched in v4.0.2 and v5.0.0
Workarounds
Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/MANTRA-Chain/mantrachain/v4"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.0.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c 4.0.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/MANTRA-Chain/mantrachain/v3"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c 4.0.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/MANTRA-Chain/mantrachain/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c 4.0.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/MANTRA-Chain/mantrachain"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-61595"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-09-30T21:06:02Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-02T20:15:35Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nsend hooks can spend more gas than what\u0027s remained in tx, combined with recursive calls in the wasm contract, can amplify the gas consumption exponentially.\n\n### Patches\n\nIt\u0027s patched in v4.0.2 and v5.0.0\n\n### Workarounds\n_Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?_",
"id": "GHSA-qwvm-wqq8-8j69",
"modified": "2025-10-23T20:34:29Z",
"published": "2025-09-30T21:06:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/MANTRA-Chain/mantrachain/security/advisories/GHSA-qwvm-wqq8-8j69"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-61595"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/MANTRA-Chain/mantrachain/issues/432"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/MANTRA-Chain/mantrachain/commit/30d36c46e9823b56b8f0dcbb66e980ca5df284e4"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/MANTRA-Chain/mantrachain"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2025-3997"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "github.com/MANTRA-Chain/mantrachain/x/tokenfactory tx gas limit is not enforced in send hooks"
}
GHSA-QWXG-WWJ2-F994
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-04 00:30 – Updated: 2026-02-04 00:30VirtualTablet Server 3.0.2 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows attackers to crash the service by sending oversized string payloads through the Thrift protocol. Attackers can exploit the vulnerability by sending a long string to the send_say() method, causing the server to become unresponsive.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-37085"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-03T22:16:24Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "VirtualTablet Server 3.0.2 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows attackers to crash the service by sending oversized string payloads through the Thrift protocol. Attackers can exploit the vulnerability by sending a long string to the send_say() method, causing the server to become unresponsive.",
"id": "GHSA-qwxg-wwj2-f994",
"modified": "2026-02-04T00:30:29Z",
"published": "2026-02-04T00:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-37085"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/48402"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/virtualtablet-server-denial-of-service-poc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.sunnysidesoft.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
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.