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.
3027 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-R9PX-M959-CXF4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-06 16:20 – Updated: 2025-08-27 14:24Impact
A denial of service (DoS) vulnerability was discovered in go-git versions prior to v5.13. This vulnerability allows an attacker to perform denial of service attacks by providing specially crafted responses from a Git server which triggers resource exhaustion in go-git clients.
This is a go-git implementation issue and does not affect the upstream git cli.
Patches
Users running versions of go-git from v4 and above are recommended to upgrade to v5.13 in order to mitigate this vulnerability.
Workarounds
In cases where a bump to the latest version of go-git is not possible, we recommend limiting its use to only trust-worthy Git servers.
Credit
Thanks to Ionut Lalu for responsibly disclosing this vulnerability to us.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "gopkg.in/src-d/go-git.v4"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0"
},
{
"last_affected": "4.13.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/go-git/go-git/v5"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.13.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/go-git/go-git"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0"
},
{
"last_affected": "4.13.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-21614"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-01-06T16:20:28Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-06T17:15:47Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\nA denial of service (DoS) vulnerability was discovered in go-git versions prior to `v5.13`. This vulnerability allows an attacker to perform denial of service attacks by providing specially crafted responses from a Git server which triggers resource exhaustion in `go-git` clients. \n\nThis is a `go-git` implementation issue and does not affect the upstream `git` cli.\n\n### Patches\nUsers running versions of `go-git` from `v4` and above are recommended to upgrade to `v5.13` in order to mitigate this vulnerability.\n\n### Workarounds\nIn cases where a bump to the latest version of `go-git` is not possible, we recommend limiting its use to only trust-worthy Git servers.\n\n## Credit\nThanks to Ionut Lalu for responsibly disclosing this vulnerability to us.",
"id": "GHSA-r9px-m959-cxf4",
"modified": "2025-08-27T14:24:37Z",
"published": "2025-01-06T16:20:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-git/go-git/security/advisories/GHSA-r9px-m959-cxf4"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-21614"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/go-git/go-git"
}
],
"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": "go-git clients vulnerable to DoS via maliciously crafted Git server replies"
}
GHSA-R9R6-C43W-4HR8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-03-03 00:30 – Updated: 2024-11-01 18:31In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
HID: sony: Fix a potential memory leak in sony_probe()
If an error occurs after a successful usb_alloc_urb() call, usb_free_urb() should be called.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-52529"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-03-02T22:15:48Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nHID: sony: Fix a potential memory leak in sony_probe()\n\nIf an error occurs after a successful usb_alloc_urb() call, usb_free_urb()\nshould be called.",
"id": "GHSA-r9r6-c43w-4hr8",
"modified": "2024-11-01T18:31:24Z",
"published": "2024-03-03T00:30:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-52529"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/bb0707fde7492121917fd9ddb43829e96ec0bb9e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e1cd4004cde7c9b694bbdd8def0e02288ee58c74"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f237b17611fa3501f43f12d1cb64323e10fdcb4f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f566efa7de1e35e6523f4acbaf85068a540be07d"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-R9VF-QQQR-747X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-30 15:30 – Updated: 2024-10-30 15:30The LevelOne WBR-6012 router with firmware R0.40e6 is vulnerable to improper resource allocation within its web application, where a series of crafted HTTP requests can cause a reboot. This could lead to network service interruptions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-31152"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-30T14:15:05Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The LevelOne WBR-6012 router with firmware R0.40e6 is vulnerable to improper resource allocation within its web application, where a series of crafted HTTP requests can cause a reboot. This could lead to network service interruptions.",
"id": "GHSA-r9vf-qqqr-747x",
"modified": "2024-10-30T15:30:46Z",
"published": "2024-10-30T15:30:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-31152"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2024-1982"
}
],
"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-RC69-H6H5-3Q4X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-20 12:32 – Updated: 2025-03-20 12:32Realchar version v0.0.4 is vulnerable to an unauthenticated denial of service (DoS) attack. The vulnerability exists in the file upload request handling, where appending characters, such as dashes (-), to the end of a multipart boundary in an HTTP request causes the server to continuously process each character. This leads to excessive resource consumption and renders the service unavailable. The issue is unauthenticated and does not require any user interaction, impacting all users of the service.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-10051"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-20T10:15:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Realchar version v0.0.4 is vulnerable to an unauthenticated denial of service (DoS) attack. The vulnerability exists in the file upload request handling, where appending characters, such as dashes (-), to the end of a multipart boundary in an HTTP request causes the server to continuously process each character. This leads to excessive resource consumption and renders the service unavailable. The issue is unauthenticated and does not require any user interaction, impacting all users of the service.",
"id": "GHSA-rc69-h6h5-3q4x",
"modified": "2025-03-20T12:32:38Z",
"published": "2025-03-20T12:32:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-10051"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.com/bounties/6db72368-e7bc-43ee-a4ae-6092f710c263"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RC77-79CW-289M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-21 18:32 – Updated: 2025-08-07 15:33In Netgear RAX30 V1.0.10.94_3, the USERLIMIT_GLOBAL option is set to 0 in multiple bftpd-related configuration files. This can cause DoS attacks when unlimited users are connected.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-44652"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-21T18:15:27Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In Netgear RAX30 V1.0.10.94_3, the USERLIMIT_GLOBAL option is set to 0 in multiple bftpd-related configuration files. This can cause DoS attacks when unlimited users are connected.",
"id": "GHSA-rc77-79cw-289m",
"modified": "2025-08-07T15:33:08Z",
"published": "2025-07-21T18:32:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-44652"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/TPCchecker/cb4549b7689727efeb24de0802c0fde3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.netgear.com/about/security"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.notion.so/CVE-2025-44652-24754a1113e78003909afbd6f7fd707b"
}
],
"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-RCGG-9C38-7XPX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-14 16:36 – Updated: 2026-06-09 02:01Overview
A vulnerability affects the baggage propagation implementation in
opentelemetry-api and opentelemetry-extension-trace-propagators. Parsing oversized baggage
causes unbounded memory allocation and CPU consumption. Because baggage is automatically
re-injected into every outgoing request, the effect can fan out to downstream services that
never received the original malicious request.
Technical Details
W3CBaggagePropagatordid not enforce any limit on the total size or entry count of thebaggageheader. The parser iterated character-by-character through the entire value regardless of length.JaegerPropagatorandOtTracePropagatorhad the same gap in their respective baggage extraction paths.- The W3C Baggage specification recommends a maximum of 8,192 bytes and 180 entries; none of these limits were enforced.
Impact
The practical availability impact for most deployments is limited. Every major Java HTTP server enforces its own header size limit (Tomcat, Jetty, Netty, Vert.x, and gRPC-Java all default to 8 KiB), constraining what an external attacker can deliver before the application is reached. The risk is higher when transport-layer limits are absent — e.g., a compromised internal service communicating over a non-HTTP or custom transport.
Remediation
Update to version 1.62.0 or later (#8380). The fix enforces limits consistent with the W3C Baggage specification at the propagator level:
- Maximum total baggage size: 8,192 bytes across all
baggageheader values - Maximum number of entries: 64
Headers that would exceed either limit are dropped at the point the limit is reached; already-extracted valid entries are retained.
Workarounds
Ensure HTTP header size limits are configured at the server or gateway level. Most Java HTTP servers enforce an 8 KiB header limit by default, which mitigates external attack vectors independently of this fix.
References
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.61.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.opentelemetry:opentelemetry-api"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.62.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.61.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.opentelemetry:opentelemetry-extension-trace-propagators"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.62.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-45292"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-14T16:36:04Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-28T17:16:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Overview\n\nA vulnerability affects the baggage propagation implementation in\n`opentelemetry-api` and `opentelemetry-extension-trace-propagators`. Parsing oversized baggage\ncauses unbounded memory allocation and CPU consumption. Because baggage is automatically\nre-injected into every outgoing request, the effect can fan out to downstream services that\nnever received the original malicious request.\n\n## Technical Details\n\n- `W3CBaggagePropagator` did not enforce any limit on the total size or entry count of the\n `baggage` header. The parser iterated character-by-character through the entire value\n regardless of length.\n- `JaegerPropagator` and `OtTracePropagator` had the same gap in their respective baggage\n extraction paths.\n- The W3C Baggage specification recommends a maximum of 8,192 bytes and 180 entries; none of\n these limits were enforced.\n\n## Impact\n\nThe practical availability impact for most deployments is limited. Every major Java HTTP server\nenforces its own header size limit (Tomcat, Jetty, Netty, Vert.x, and gRPC-Java all default to\n8 KiB), constraining what an external attacker can deliver before the application is reached.\nThe risk is higher when transport-layer limits are absent \u2014 e.g., a compromised internal service\ncommunicating over a non-HTTP or custom transport.\n\n## Remediation\n\nUpdate to version 1.62.0 or later ([#8380](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-java/pull/8380)).\nThe fix enforces limits consistent with the W3C Baggage specification at the propagator level:\n\n- Maximum total baggage size: 8,192 bytes across all `baggage` header values\n- Maximum number of entries: 64\n\nHeaders that would exceed either limit are dropped at the point the limit is reached;\nalready-extracted valid entries are retained.\n\n## Workarounds\n\nEnsure HTTP header size limits are configured at the server or gateway level. Most Java HTTP\nservers enforce an 8 KiB header limit by default, which mitigates external attack vectors\nindependently of this fix.\n\n## References\n\n- [W3C Baggage Specification \u00a7Limits](https://www.w3.org/TR/baggage/#limits)",
"id": "GHSA-rcgg-9c38-7xpx",
"modified": "2026-06-09T02:01:11Z",
"published": "2026-05-14T16:36:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-java/security/advisories/GHSA-rcgg-9c38-7xpx"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45292"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-java/pull/8380"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-java/commit/03837d3c1763bc35464aea1078671e2ef2336a5f"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-java"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-java/releases/tag/v1.62.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "OpenTelemetry Java SDK has Unbounded Memory Allocation in W3C Baggage Propagation"
}
GHSA-RCJV-MGP8-QVMR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-16 14:01 – Updated: 2024-02-19 03:30Summary
This handler wrapper https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/blob/5f7e6ad5a49b45df45f61a1deb29d7f1158032df/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttp/handler.go#L63-L65 out of the box adds labels
http.user_agenthttp.method
that have unbound cardinality. It leads to the server's potential memory exhaustion when many malicious requests are sent to it.
Details
HTTP header User-Agent or HTTP method for requests can be easily set by an attacker to be random and long. The library internally uses httpconv.ServerRequest that records every value for HTTP method and User-Agent.
PoC
Send many requests with long randomly generated HTTP methods or/and User agents (e.g. a million) and observe how memory consumption increases during it.
Impact
In order to be affected, the program has to configure a metrics pipeline, use otelhttp.NewHandler wrapper, and does not filter any unknown HTTP methods or User agents on the level of CDN, LB, previous middleware, etc.
Others
It is similar to already reported vulnerabilities - https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/security/advisories/GHSA-5r5m-65gx-7vrh (open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib) - https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-cg3q-j54f-5p7p (prometheus/client_golang)
Workaround for affected versions
As a workaround to stop being affected otelhttp.WithFilter() can be used, but it requires manual careful configuration to not log certain requests entirely.
For convenience and safe usage of this library, it should by default mark with the label unknown non-standard HTTP methods and User agents to show that such requests were made but do not increase cardinality. In case someone wants to stay with the current behavior, library API should allow to enable it.
The other possibility is to disable HTTP metrics instrumentation by passing otelhttp.WithMeterProvider option with noop.NewMeterProvider.
Solution provided by upgrading
In PR https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/pull/4277, released with package version 0.44.0, the values collected for attribute http.request.method were changed to be restricted to a set of well-known values and other high cardinality attributes were removed.
References
- https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/pull/4277
- https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/releases/tag/v1.19.0
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.44.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/github.com/emicklei/go-restful/otelrestful"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.44.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/github.com/gin-gonic/gin/otelgin"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.44.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/github.com/gorilla/mux/otelmux"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.44.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/github.com/labstack/echo/otelecho"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.44.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/gopkg.in/macaron.v1/otelmacaron"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.44.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/net/http/httptrace/otelhttptrace"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.44.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-45142"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-10-16T14:01:54Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-10-12T17:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nThis handler wrapper https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/blob/5f7e6ad5a49b45df45f61a1deb29d7f1158032df/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttp/handler.go#L63-L65\nout of the box adds labels\n\n- `http.user_agent`\n- `http.method`\n\nthat have unbound cardinality. It leads to the server\u0027s potential memory exhaustion when many malicious requests are sent to it.\n\n### Details\n\nHTTP header User-Agent or HTTP method for requests can be easily set by an attacker to be random and long. The library internally uses [httpconv.ServerRequest](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go/blob/v1.12.0/semconv/internal/v2/http.go#L159) that records every value for HTTP [method](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go/blob/38e1b499c3da3107694ad2660b3888eee9c8b896/semconv/internal/v2/http.go#L204) and [User-Agent](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go/blob/38e1b499c3da3107694ad2660b3888eee9c8b896/semconv/internal/v2/http.go#L223).\n\n### PoC\n\nSend many requests with long randomly generated HTTP methods or/and User agents (e.g. a million) and observe how memory consumption increases during it.\n\n### Impact\n\nIn order to be affected, the program has to configure a metrics pipeline, use [otelhttp.NewHandler](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/blob/5f7e6ad5a49b45df45f61a1deb29d7f1158032df/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttp/handler.go#L63-L65) wrapper, and does not filter any unknown HTTP methods or User agents on the level of CDN, LB, previous middleware, etc.\n\n### Others\n\nIt is similar to already reported vulnerabilities\n- https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/security/advisories/GHSA-5r5m-65gx-7vrh ([open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib))\n- https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-cg3q-j54f-5p7p ([prometheus/client_golang](https://github.com/prometheus/client_golang))\n\n### Workaround for affected versions\n\nAs a workaround to stop being affected [otelhttp.WithFilter()](https://pkg.go.dev/go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttp/filters) can be used, but it requires manual careful configuration to not log certain requests entirely.\n\nFor convenience and safe usage of this library, it should by default mark with the label `unknown` non-standard HTTP methods and User agents to show that such requests were made but do not increase cardinality. In case someone wants to stay with the current behavior, library API should allow to enable it.\n\nThe other possibility is to disable HTTP metrics instrumentation by passing [`otelhttp.WithMeterProvider`](https://pkg.go.dev/go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttp#WithMeterProvider) option with [`noop.NewMeterProvider`](https://pkg.go.dev/go.opentelemetry.io/otel/metric/noop#NewMeterProvider).\n\n### Solution provided by upgrading\n\nIn PR https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/pull/4277, released with package version 0.44.0, the values collected for attribute `http.request.method` were changed to be restricted to a set of well-known values and other high cardinality attributes were removed.\n\n### References\n\n- https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/pull/4277\n- https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/releases/tag/v1.19.0\n",
"id": "GHSA-rcjv-mgp8-qvmr",
"modified": "2024-02-19T03:30:24Z",
"published": "2023-10-16T14:01:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/security/advisories/GHSA-5r5m-65gx-7vrh"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/security/advisories/GHSA-rcjv-mgp8-qvmr"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-45142"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/pull/4277"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-cg3q-j54f-5p7p"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/blob/5f7e6ad5a49b45df45f61a1deb29d7f1158032df/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttp/handler.go#L63-L65"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/releases/tag/v1.19.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go/blob/38e1b499c3da3107694ad2660b3888eee9c8b896/semconv/internal/v2/http.go#L223"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go/blob/v1.12.0/semconv/internal/v2/http.go#L159"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/2UTRJ54INZG3OC2FTAN6AFB2RYNY2GAD"
}
],
"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": "OpenTelemetry-Go Contrib vulnerable to denial of service in otelhttp due to unbound cardinality metrics"
}
GHSA-RCVW-FC36-WJHJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-27 00:30 – Updated: 2025-10-27 00:30GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 11.7 before 18.3.5, 18.4 before 18.4.3, and 18.5 before 18.5.1 that could have allowed an unauthenticated attacker to create a denial of service condition by uploading large files to specific API endpoints.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-11974"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-27T00:15:40Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 11.7 before 18.3.5, 18.4 before 18.4.3, and 18.5 before 18.5.1 that could have allowed an unauthenticated attacker to create a denial of service condition by uploading large files to specific API endpoints.",
"id": "GHSA-rcvw-fc36-wjhj",
"modified": "2025-10-27T00:30:50Z",
"published": "2025-10-27T00:30:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-11974"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2025/10/22/patch-release-gitlab-18-5-1-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/571761"
}
],
"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-RCWV-F9JP-P684
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-20 18:31 – Updated: 2026-05-20 18:31Allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability in Progress Software MOVEit Automation allows Excessive Allocation.
This issue affects MOVEit Automation: before 2025.0.11, from 2025.1.0 before 2025.1.7.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-8488"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-20T16:16:27Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability in Progress Software MOVEit Automation allows Excessive Allocation.\n\nThis issue affects MOVEit Automation: before 2025.0.11, from 2025.1.0 before 2025.1.7.",
"id": "GHSA-rcwv-f9jp-p684",
"modified": "2026-05-20T18:31:35Z",
"published": "2026-05-20T18:31:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-8488"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.progress.com/bundle/moveit-automation-release-notes-2026/page/Fixed-Issues-2026.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RF6C-M595-CVC8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-10 21:31 – Updated: 2025-02-11 15:32The issue was addressed with improved memory handling. This issue is fixed in iOS 17.4 and iPadOS 17.4, Safari 17.4, tvOS 17.4, watchOS 10.4, visionOS 1.1, macOS Sonoma 14.4. Processing web content may lead to a denial-of-service.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-54658"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-10T19:15:39Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The issue was addressed with improved memory handling. This issue is fixed in iOS 17.4 and iPadOS 17.4, Safari 17.4, tvOS 17.4, watchOS 10.4, visionOS 1.1, macOS Sonoma 14.4. Processing web content may lead to a denial-of-service.",
"id": "GHSA-rf6c-m595-cvc8",
"modified": "2025-02-11T15:32:22Z",
"published": "2025-02-10T21:31:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-54658"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/120881"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/120882"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/120883"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/120893"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/120894"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/120895"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
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.