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-VVGJ-X9JQ-8CJ9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-03 20:59 – Updated: 2026-06-09 11:54Summary
An attacker can cause excessive memory allocation in quic-go's HTTP/3 client and server implementations by sending a QPACK-encoded HEADERS frame that decodes into a large trailer field section with many unique field names and/or large values. The implementation builds an http.Header for the corresponding http.Request or http.Response, while only enforcing limits on the size of the QPACK-compressed HEADERS frame, not on the decoded field section. This can lead to memory exhaustion.
This is very similar to CVE-2025-64702. The difference is that this issue uses HTTP trailers, rather than HTTP headers, as the attack vector.
Impact
A misbehaving or malicious peer can cause a denial-of-service (DoS) attack against quic-go's HTTP/3 servers or clients by triggering excessive memory allocation, potentially leading to crashes or resource exhaustion. This affects both servers and clients due to symmetric header construction.
Details
In HTTP/3, field sections are compressed using QPACK (RFC 9204). Field sections are used for both HTTP headers and trailers. quic-go's HTTP/3 server and client decode the QPACK-encoded HEADERS frame into header fields, then construct an http.Request or http.Response.
http3.Server.MaxHeaderBytes and http3.Transport.MaxResponseHeaderBytes limit the encoded HEADERS frame size, with defaults of 1 MB for servers and 10 MB for clients. However, they did not limit the decoded field section size. A maliciously crafted HEADERS frame carrying trailers can expand to about 50x the encoded size using QPACK static table entries with long names and/or values.
RFC 9114 requires endpoints to enforce decoded field section size limits via SETTINGS, which quic-go did not do for trailers.
The Fix
quic-go now enforces RFC 9114 decoded field section size limits for trailers as well. It incrementally decodes QPACK entries and checks the field section size after each entry, aborting the stream if an entry causes the limit to be exceeded.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.59.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/quic-go/quic-go"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.59.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-40898"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-03T20:59:49Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-04T19:16:28Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nAn attacker can cause excessive memory allocation in quic-go\u0027s HTTP/3 client and server implementations by sending a QPACK-encoded HEADERS frame that decodes into a large trailer field section with many unique field names and/or large values. The implementation builds an `http.Header` for the corresponding `http.Request` or `http.Response`, while only enforcing limits on the size of the QPACK-compressed HEADERS frame, not on the decoded field section. This can lead to memory exhaustion.\n\nThis is very similar to CVE-2025-64702. The difference is that this issue uses HTTP trailers, rather than HTTP headers, as the attack vector.\n\n## Impact\n\nA misbehaving or malicious peer can cause a denial-of-service (DoS) attack against quic-go\u0027s HTTP/3 servers or clients by triggering excessive memory allocation, potentially leading to crashes or resource exhaustion. This affects both servers and clients due to symmetric header construction.\n\n## Details\n\nIn HTTP/3, field sections are compressed using QPACK (RFC 9204). Field sections are used for both HTTP headers and trailers. quic-go\u0027s HTTP/3 server and client decode the QPACK-encoded HEADERS frame into header fields, then construct an `http.Request` or `http.Response`.\n\n`http3.Server.MaxHeaderBytes` and `http3.Transport.MaxResponseHeaderBytes` limit the encoded HEADERS frame size, with defaults of 1 MB for servers and 10 MB for clients. However, they did not limit the decoded field section size. A maliciously crafted HEADERS frame carrying trailers can expand to about 50x the encoded size using QPACK static table entries with long names and/or values.\n\nRFC 9114 requires endpoints to enforce decoded field section size limits via SETTINGS, which quic-go did not do for trailers.\n\n## The Fix\n\nquic-go now enforces RFC 9114 decoded field section size limits for trailers as well. It incrementally decodes QPACK entries and checks the field section size after each entry, aborting the stream if an entry causes the limit to be exceeded.",
"id": "GHSA-vvgj-x9jq-8cj9",
"modified": "2026-06-09T11:54:12Z",
"published": "2026-06-03T20:59:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/quic-go/security/advisories/GHSA-vvgj-x9jq-8cj9"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-40898"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/quic-go/pull/5642"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/quic-go/commit/c56e8c79d1627cc1ed6005b421b4b0adadd83665"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-g754-hx8w-x2g6"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/quic-go"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/quic-go/releases/tag/v0.59.1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "quic-go: HTTP/3 QPACK Trailer Expansion Memory Exhaustion "
}
GHSA-VVP9-6M65-CRVV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-14 15:31 – Updated: 2025-10-14 15:31A denial-of-service security issue exists in the affected product and version. The security issue stems from a high number of requests sent to the web server. This could result in a web server crash however; this does not impact I/O control or communication . A power cycle is required to recover and utilize the webpage.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-9177"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-14T13:15:40Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A denial-of-service security issue exists in the affected product and version. The security issue stems from a high number of requests sent to the web server. This could result in a web server crash however; this does not impact I/O control or communication\u00a0. A power cycle is required to recover and utilize the webpage.",
"id": "GHSA-vvp9-6m65-crvv",
"modified": "2025-10-14T15:31:27Z",
"published": "2025-10-14T15:31:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-9177"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1757.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-VVQG-X2XV-3M2C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-02 00:00 – Updated: 2022-07-13 00:01TOTOLINK T6 V4.1.9cu.5179_B20201015 was discovered to contain a stack overflow via the password parameter in the function FUN_00413f80.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-32044"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-01T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "TOTOLINK T6 V4.1.9cu.5179_B20201015 was discovered to contain a stack overflow via the password parameter in the function FUN_00413f80.",
"id": "GHSA-vvqg-x2xv-3m2c",
"modified": "2022-07-13T00:01:52Z",
"published": "2022-07-02T00:00:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-32044"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/d1tto/IoT-vuln/tree/main/Totolink/T6-v2/5.setWiFiRepeaterCfg"
}
],
"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-VW22-2CVX-M8F8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:19 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:19A memory allocation with excessive size value vulnerability in the license verification function of FortiPortal before 6.0.6 may allow an attacker to perform a denial of service attack via specially crafted license blobs.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-36174"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-11-02T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A memory allocation with excessive size value vulnerability in the license verification function of FortiPortal before 6.0.6 may allow an attacker to perform a denial of service attack via specially crafted license blobs.",
"id": "GHSA-vw22-2cvx-m8f8",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:19:24Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:19:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-36174"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://fortiguard.com/advisory/FG-IR-21-109"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-VW3H-Q6XQ-JJM5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-17 21:48 – Updated: 2026-06-08 23:25Summary
Voice-call realtime WebSocket accepted oversized frames.
Affected Packages / Versions
- Package:
openclaw - Ecosystem: npm
- Affected versions:
>= 2026.4.9 < 2026.4.10 - Patched versions:
>= 2026.4.10
Impact
The voice-call realtime WebSocket path could accept oversized frames, creating a remote availability risk for deployments exposing that webhook path.
Technical Details
The fix rejects oversized realtime WebSocket frames before processing them.
Fix
The issue was fixed in #63890. The first stable tag containing the fix is v2026.4.10, and openclaw@2026.4.14 includes the fix.
Fix Commit(s)
afadb7dae6738819ad9c7d2597ace0516957d20e- PR: #63890
Release Process Note
Users should upgrade to openclaw 2026.4.10 or newer. The latest npm release, 2026.4.14, already includes the fix.
Reporters
Thanks to G0odUser from ADLab of VenusTech Thanks to @zsxsoft, with sponsorship from @KeenSecurityLab and @qclawer for reporting this issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2026.4.9"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.4.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-42437"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-17T21:48:36Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-05T12:16:18Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nVoice-call realtime WebSocket accepted oversized frames.\n\n## Affected Packages / Versions\n\n- Package: `openclaw`\n- Ecosystem: npm\n- Affected versions: `\u003e= 2026.4.9 \u003c 2026.4.10`\n- Patched versions: `\u003e= 2026.4.10`\n\n## Impact\n\nThe voice-call realtime WebSocket path could accept oversized frames, creating a remote availability risk for deployments exposing that webhook path.\n\n## Technical Details\n\nThe fix rejects oversized realtime WebSocket frames before processing them.\n\n## Fix\n\nThe issue was fixed in #63890. The first stable tag containing the fix is `v2026.4.10`, and `openclaw@2026.4.14` includes the fix.\n\n## Fix Commit(s)\n\n- `afadb7dae6738819ad9c7d2597ace0516957d20e`\n- PR: #63890\n\n## Release Process Note\n\nUsers should upgrade to `openclaw` 2026.4.10 or newer. The latest npm release, `2026.4.14`, already includes the fix.\n\n## Reporters\n\nThanks to G0odUser from ADLab of VenusTech\nThanks to @zsxsoft, with sponsorship from @KeenSecurityLab and @qclawer for reporting this issue.",
"id": "GHSA-vw3h-q6xq-jjm5",
"modified": "2026-06-08T23:25:32Z",
"published": "2026-04-17T21:48:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-vw3h-q6xq-jjm5"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42437"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/pull/63890"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/afadb7dae6738819ad9c7d2597ace0516957d20e"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-denial-of-service-via-oversized-websocket-frames-in-voice-call-realtime-path"
}
],
"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": "OpenClaw: Voice-call realtime WebSocket accepted oversized frames"
}
GHSA-VWC8-VMVR-QQCF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-03-27 09:30 – Updated: 2024-08-05 18:31An issue was discovered in Couchbase Server 6.6.x through 7.2.0, before 7.1.5 and 7.2.1. Unauthenticated users may cause memcached to run out of memory via large commands.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-43768"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-03-27T07:15:48Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Couchbase Server 6.6.x through 7.2.0, before 7.1.5 and 7.2.1. Unauthenticated users may cause memcached to run out of memory via large commands.",
"id": "GHSA-vwc8-vmvr-qqcf",
"modified": "2024-08-05T18:31:42Z",
"published": "2024-03-27T09:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-43768"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.couchbase.com/server/current/release-notes/relnotes.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://forums.couchbase.com/tags/security"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.couchbase.com/alerts"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.couchbase.com/downloads"
}
],
"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-VWCX-7W56-22RQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:39 – Updated: 2022-08-06 00:00A vulnerability in processing of certain DHCP packets from adjacent clients on EX Series and QFX Series switches running Juniper Networks Junos OS with DHCP local/relay server configured may lead to exhaustion of DMA memory causing a Denial of Service (DoS). Over time, exploitation of this vulnerability may cause traffic to stop being forwarded, or to crashing of the fxpc process. When Packet DMA heap utilization reaches 99%, the system will become unstable. Packet DMA heap utilization can be monitored through the following command: user@junos# request pfe execute target fpc0 timeout 30 command "show heap" ID Base Total(b) Free(b) Used(b) % Name -- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --- ----------- 0 213301a8 536870488 387228840 149641648 27 Kernel 1 91800000 8388608 3735120 4653488 55 DMA 2 92000000 75497472 74452192 1045280 1 PKT DMA DESC 3 d330000 335544320 257091400 78452920 23 Bcm_sdk 4 96800000 184549376 2408 184546968 99 Packet DMA <--- 5 903fffe0 20971504 20971504 0 0 Blob An indication of the issue occurring may be observed through the following log messages: Dec 10 08:07:00.124 2020 hostname fpc0 brcm_pkt_buf_alloc:523 (buf alloc) failed allocating packet buffer Dec 10 08:07:00.126 2020 hostname fpc0 (buf alloc) failed allocating packet buffer Dec 10 08:07:00.128 2020 hostname fpc0 brcm_pkt_buf_alloc:523 (buf alloc) failed allocating packet buffer Dec 10 08:07:00.130 2020 hostnameC fpc0 (buf alloc) failed allocating packet buffer This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS on EX Series and QFX Series: 17.4R3 versions prior to 17.4R3-S3; 18.1R3 versions between 18.1R3-S6 and 18.1R3-S11; 18.2R3 versions prior to 18.2R3-S6; 18.3R3 versions prior to 18.3R3-S4; 18.4R2 versions prior to 18.4R2-S5; 18.4R3 versions prior to 18.4R3-S6; 19.1 versions between 19.1R2 and 19.1R3-S3; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R3-S1; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R2-S5, 19.3R3; 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R2-S2, 19.4R3; 20.1 versions prior to 20.1R2; 20.2 versions prior to 20.2R1-S2, 20.2R2. Junos OS versions prior to 17.4R3 are unaffected by this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-0217"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-119",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-01-15T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in processing of certain DHCP packets from adjacent clients on EX Series and QFX Series switches running Juniper Networks Junos OS with DHCP local/relay server configured may lead to exhaustion of DMA memory causing a Denial of Service (DoS). Over time, exploitation of this vulnerability may cause traffic to stop being forwarded, or to crashing of the fxpc process. When Packet DMA heap utilization reaches 99%, the system will become unstable. Packet DMA heap utilization can be monitored through the following command: user@junos# request pfe execute target fpc0 timeout 30 command \"show heap\" ID Base Total(b) Free(b) Used(b) % Name -- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --- ----------- 0 213301a8 536870488 387228840 149641648 27 Kernel 1 91800000 8388608 3735120 4653488 55 DMA 2 92000000 75497472 74452192 1045280 1 PKT DMA DESC 3 d330000 335544320 257091400 78452920 23 Bcm_sdk 4 96800000 184549376 2408 184546968 99 Packet DMA \u003c--- 5 903fffe0 20971504 20971504 0 0 Blob An indication of the issue occurring may be observed through the following log messages: Dec 10 08:07:00.124 2020 hostname fpc0 brcm_pkt_buf_alloc:523 (buf alloc) failed allocating packet buffer Dec 10 08:07:00.126 2020 hostname fpc0 (buf alloc) failed allocating packet buffer Dec 10 08:07:00.128 2020 hostname fpc0 brcm_pkt_buf_alloc:523 (buf alloc) failed allocating packet buffer Dec 10 08:07:00.130 2020 hostnameC fpc0 (buf alloc) failed allocating packet buffer This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS on EX Series and QFX Series: 17.4R3 versions prior to 17.4R3-S3; 18.1R3 versions between 18.1R3-S6 and 18.1R3-S11; 18.2R3 versions prior to 18.2R3-S6; 18.3R3 versions prior to 18.3R3-S4; 18.4R2 versions prior to 18.4R2-S5; 18.4R3 versions prior to 18.4R3-S6; 19.1 versions between 19.1R2 and 19.1R3-S3; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R3-S1; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R2-S5, 19.3R3; 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R2-S2, 19.4R3; 20.1 versions prior to 20.1R2; 20.2 versions prior to 20.2R1-S2, 20.2R2. Junos OS versions prior to 17.4R3 are unaffected by this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-vwcx-7w56-22rq",
"modified": "2022-08-06T00:00:38Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:39:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-0217"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kb.juniper.net/JSA11107"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-VWQH-MHGJ-P4M8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:16 – Updated: 2023-07-07 21:30Multiple vulnerabilities in the Cisco ATA 190 Series Analog Telephone Adapter Software could allow an attacker to perform a command injection attack resulting in remote code execution or cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device. For more information about these vulnerabilities, see the Details section of this advisory.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-34735"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-77",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-10-06T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple vulnerabilities in the Cisco ATA 190 Series Analog Telephone Adapter Software could allow an attacker to perform a command injection attack resulting in remote code execution or cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device. For more information about these vulnerabilities, see the Details section of this advisory.",
"id": "GHSA-vwqh-mhgj-p4m8",
"modified": "2023-07-07T21:30:15Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:16:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-34735"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-ata19x-multivuln-A4J57F3"
}
],
"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-VXPW-J846-P89Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-19 14:22 – Updated: 2026-06-19 14:22Impact
The undici WebSocket client enforces maxPayloadSize on the cumulative byte count of fragments in a message but does not enforce a limit on the number of fragments. A malicious WebSocket server can stream many small or empty continuation frames that each pass per-frame and cumulative-size validation, collectively causing unbounded memory growth in the client process. The result is memory exhaustion and a denial of service.
Affected applications are those using the undici WebSocket client (new WebSocket(...)) or the WebSocketStream API that can be induced to connect to an attacker-controlled or compromised WebSocket endpoint.
All releases starting at undici 6.17.0 are affected.
Patches
Upgrade to undici v6.27.0, v7.28.0 or v8.5.0.
Workarounds
No workaround is available. The fix must be applied through an upgrade.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "undici"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "6.27.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "undici"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "7.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "7.28.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "undici"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "8.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "8.5.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-12151"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-19T14:22:01Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-17T17:16:42Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Impact\n\nThe undici WebSocket client enforces `maxPayloadSize` on the cumulative byte count of fragments in a message but does not enforce a limit on the number of fragments. A malicious WebSocket server can stream many small or empty continuation frames that each pass per-frame and cumulative-size validation, collectively causing unbounded memory growth in the client process. The result is memory exhaustion and a denial of service.\n\nAffected applications are those using the undici WebSocket client (`new WebSocket(...)`) or the `WebSocketStream` API that can be induced to connect to an attacker-controlled or compromised WebSocket endpoint.\n\nAll releases starting at undici 6.17.0 are affected.\n\n## Patches\n\nUpgrade to undici v6.27.0, v7.28.0 or v8.5.0.\n\n## Workarounds\n\nNo workaround is available. The fix must be applied through an upgrade.",
"id": "GHSA-vxpw-j846-p89q",
"modified": "2026-06-19T14:22:01Z",
"published": "2026-06-19T14:22:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-vxpw-j846-p89q"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-12151"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cna.openjsf.org/security-advisories.html"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici"
}
],
"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": "undici WebSocket client vulnerable to denial of service via fragment count bypass"
}
GHSA-VXW5-RXJ4-H92F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-05 12:33 – Updated: 2025-02-05 12:33A denial of service vulnerability was identified in GitLab CE/EE, affecting all versions from 15.11 prior to 16.6.7, 16.7 prior to 16.7.5 and 16.8 prior to 16.8.2 which allows an attacker to spike the GitLab instance resource usage resulting in service degradation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-6386"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-05T10:15:22Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A denial of service vulnerability was identified in GitLab CE/EE, affecting all versions from 15.11 prior to 16.6.7, 16.7 prior to 16.7.5 and 16.8 prior to 16.8.2 which allows an attacker to spike the GitLab instance resource usage resulting in service degradation.",
"id": "GHSA-vxw5-rxj4-h92f",
"modified": "2025-02-05T12:33:07Z",
"published": "2025-02-05T12:33:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-6386"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/2261581"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/433147"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.