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.
3009 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-XH2H-CW6H-X9H5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:48 – Updated: 2024-02-27 21:31Jonathan Looney discovered that the TCP retransmission queue implementation in tcp_fragment in the Linux kernel could be fragmented when handling certain TCP Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) sequences. A remote attacker could use this to cause a denial of service. This has been fixed in stable kernel releases 4.4.182, 4.9.182, 4.14.127, 4.19.52, 5.1.11, and is fixed in commit f070ef2ac66716357066b683fb0baf55f8191a2e.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-11478"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-06-19T00:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Jonathan Looney discovered that the TCP retransmission queue implementation in tcp_fragment in the Linux kernel could be fragmented when handling certain TCP Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) sequences. A remote attacker could use this to cause a denial of service. This has been fixed in stable kernel releases 4.4.182, 4.9.182, 4.14.127, 4.19.52, 5.1.11, and is fixed in commit f070ef2ac66716357066b683fb0baf55f8191a2e.",
"id": "GHSA-xh2h-cw6h-x9h5",
"modified": "2024-02-27T21:31:22Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:48:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-11478"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.us-cert.gov/ics/advisories/icsa-19-253-03"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.synology.com/security/advisory/Synology_SA_19_28"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuoct2020.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujan2020.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/905115"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/KnowledgeBase/SACKPanic"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K26618426"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20190625-0001"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Jul/30"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://psirt.global.sonicwall.com/vuln-detail/SNWLID-2019-0007"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kc.mcafee.com/corporate/index?page=content\u0026id=SB10287"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44193"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Netflix/security-bulletins/blob/master/advisories/third-party/2019-001.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git/commit/?id=f070ef2ac66716357066b683fb0baf55f8191a2e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-462066.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/vulnerabilities/tcpsack"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1699"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1602"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1594"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/153346/Kernel-Live-Patch-Security-Notice-LSN-0052-1.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/154408/Kernel-Live-Patch-Security-Notice-LSN-0055-1.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/154951/Kernel-Live-Patch-Security-Notice-LSN-0058-1.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.arubanetworks.com/assets/alert/ARUBA-PSA-2020-010.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/06/28/2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/07/06/3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/07/06/4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/10/24/1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/10/29/3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.vmware.com/security/advisories/VMSA-2019-0010.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XH3C-49Q5-VP78
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-16 00:30 – Updated: 2024-04-16 00:30lunary-ai/lunary version 1.0.0 is vulnerable to unauthorized evaluation creation due to missing server-side checks for user account status during evaluation creation. While the web UI restricts evaluation creation to paid accounts, the server-side API endpoint '/v1/evaluations' does not verify if the user has a paid account, allowing users with free or self-hosted accounts to create unlimited evaluations without upgrading their account. This vulnerability is due to the lack of account status validation in the evaluation creation process.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-1665"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-16T00:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "lunary-ai/lunary version 1.0.0 is vulnerable to unauthorized evaluation creation due to missing server-side checks for user account status during evaluation creation. While the web UI restricts evaluation creation to paid accounts, the server-side API endpoint \u0027/v1/evaluations\u0027 does not verify if the user has a paid account, allowing users with free or self-hosted accounts to create unlimited evaluations without upgrading their account. This vulnerability is due to the lack of account status validation in the evaluation creation process.",
"id": "GHSA-xh3c-49q5-vp78",
"modified": "2024-04-16T00:30:33Z",
"published": "2024-04-16T00:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-1665"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/lunary-ai/lunary/commit/c57cd50fa0477fd2a2efe60810c0099eebd66f54"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.com/bounties/c0e6299e-ea45-435c-b849-53d50ffc0e83"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XH7Q-HG94-4G3M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-06 15:30 – Updated: 2023-11-06 15:30An issue has been discovered in GitLab EE/CE affecting all versions starting before 16.3.6, all versions starting from 16.4 before 16.4.2, all versions starting from 16.5 before 16.5.1 which allows an attackers to block Sidekiq job processor.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-3246"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-06T13:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue has been discovered in GitLab EE/CE affecting all versions starting before 16.3.6, all versions starting from 16.4 before 16.4.2, all versions starting from 16.5 before 16.5.1 which allows an attackers to block Sidekiq job processor.",
"id": "GHSA-xh7q-hg94-4g3m",
"modified": "2023-11-06T15:30:31Z",
"published": "2023-11-06T15:30:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-3246"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/2014157"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/415371"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XHG3-Q2F6-W8CG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-14 12:31 – Updated: 2026-07-14 12:31A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC S7-PLCSIM Advanced (All versions). Affected devices do not properly handle high-volume multicast network traffic, which can exhaust available memory resources in the affected application. This could allow an unauthenticated attacker on the local network segment to cause a denial-of-service condition of the affected application. The affected application becomes inaccessible and requires a manual restart; no project data is lost. Successful exploitation requires a specific project configuration to be already active on the targeted instance.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54429"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-14T10:16:33Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC S7-PLCSIM Advanced (All versions). Affected devices do not properly handle high-volume multicast network traffic, which can exhaust available memory resources in the affected application. This could allow an unauthenticated attacker on the local network segment to cause a denial-of-service condition of the affected application. The affected application becomes inaccessible and requires a manual restart; no project data is lost. Successful exploitation requires a specific project configuration to be already active on the targeted instance.",
"id": "GHSA-xhg3-q2f6-w8cg",
"modified": "2026-07-14T12:31:15Z",
"published": "2026-07-14T12:31:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-54429"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-828211.html"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/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-XHPX-F3QP-RWVQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-30 00:30 – Updated: 2024-11-01 18:31The O-RAN E2T I-Release Prometheus metric Increment function can crash in sctpThread.cpp for message.peerInfo->sctpParams->e2tCounters[IN_SUCC][MSG_COUNTER][ProcedureCode_id_RICsubscription]->Increment().
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-34046"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-30T00:15:07Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The O-RAN E2T I-Release Prometheus metric Increment function can crash in sctpThread.cpp for message.peerInfo-\u003esctpParams-\u003ee2tCounters[IN_SUCC][MSG_COUNTER][ProcedureCode_id_RICsubscription]-\u003eIncrement().",
"id": "GHSA-xhpx-f3qp-rwvq",
"modified": "2024-11-01T18:31:25Z",
"published": "2024-04-30T00:30:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-34046"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jira.o-ran-sc.org/browse/RIC-1047"
}
],
"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-XHV5-W9C5-2R2W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-02-02 21:42 – Updated: 2022-10-25 20:51Impact
blaze-core, a library underlying http4s-blaze-server, accepts connections unboundedly on its selector pool. This has the net effect of amplifying degradation in services that are unable to handle their current request load, since incoming connections are still accepted and added to an unbounded queue. Each connection allocates a socket handle, which drains a scarce OS resource. This can also confound higher level circuit breakers which work based on detecting failed connections.
http4s provides a general MaxActiveRequests middleware mechanism for limiting open connections, but it is enforced inside the Blaze accept loop, after the connection is accepted and the socket opened. Thus, the limit only prevents the number of connections which can be simultaneously processed, not the number of connections which can be held open.
Patches
In 0.21.18, 0.22.0-M3, and 1.0.0-M16, a newmaxConnections property, with a default value of 1024, has been added to the BlazeServerBuilder. Setting the value to a negative number restores unbounded behavior, but is strongly disrecommended.
The NIO2 backend does not respect maxConnections. Its use is now deprecated in http4s-0.21, and the option is removed altogether starting in http4s-0.22.
The connections are bounded in 0.21.17, 0.22.0-M2, and 1.0.0-M14, but the maxConnections parameter was passed incorrectly, making it impossible to change the Blaze default of 512.
Workarounds
- An Nginx side-car acting as a reverse proxy for the local http4s-blaze-server instance would be able to apply a connection limiting semantic before the sockets reach blaze-core. Nginx’s connection bounding is both asynchronous and properly respects backpressure.
- http4s-ember-server is an alternative to http4s-blaze-server, but does not yet have HTTP/2 or web socket support. Its performance in terms of RPS is appreciably behind Blaze’s, and as the newest backend, has substantially less industrial uptake.
- http4s-jetty is an alternative to http4s-blaze-server, but does not yet have web socket support. Its performance in terms of requests per second is somewhat behind Blaze’s, and despite Jetty's industrial adoption, the http4s integration has substantially less industrial uptake.
- http4s-tomcat is an alternative to http4s-blaze-server, but does not yet have HTTP/2 web socket support. Its performance in terms of requests per second is somewhat behind Blaze’s, and despite Jetty's industrial adoption, the http4s integration has substantially less industrial uptake.
References
See the Blaze GHSA for more on the underlying issue.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in http4s/http4s * Contact us according to the http4s security policy
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.http4s:http4s-blaze-server_2.12"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.21.17"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.http4s:http4s-blaze-server_2.13"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.21.17"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-21294"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-02-02T21:42:25Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-02-02T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nblaze-core, a library underlying http4s-blaze-server, accepts connections unboundedly on its selector pool. This has the net effect of amplifying degradation in services that are unable to handle their current request load, since incoming connections are still accepted and added to an unbounded queue. Each connection allocates a socket handle, which drains a scarce OS resource. This can also confound higher level circuit breakers which work based on detecting failed connections.\n\nhttp4s provides a general `MaxActiveRequests` middleware mechanism for limiting open connections, but it is enforced inside the Blaze accept loop, after the connection is accepted and the socket opened. Thus, the limit only prevents the number of connections which can be simultaneously processed, not the number of connections which can be held open.\n\n### Patches\n\nIn 0.21.18, 0.22.0-M3, and 1.0.0-M16, a new`maxConnections` property, with a default value of 1024, has been added to the `BlazeServerBuilder`. Setting the value to a negative number restores unbounded behavior, but is strongly disrecommended. \n\nThe NIO2 backend does not respect `maxConnections`. Its use is now deprecated in http4s-0.21, and the option is removed altogether starting in http4s-0.22.\n\nThe connections are bounded in 0.21.17, 0.22.0-M2, and 1.0.0-M14, but the `maxConnections` parameter was passed incorrectly, making it impossible to change the Blaze default of 512. \n\n### Workarounds\n* An Nginx side-car acting as a reverse proxy for the local http4s-blaze-server instance would be able to apply a connection limiting semantic before the sockets reach blaze-core. Nginx\u2019s connection bounding is both asynchronous and properly respects backpressure.\n* http4s-ember-server is an alternative to http4s-blaze-server, but does not yet have HTTP/2 or web socket support. Its performance in terms of RPS is appreciably behind Blaze\u2019s, and as the newest backend, has substantially less industrial uptake.\n* http4s-jetty is an alternative to http4s-blaze-server, but does not yet have web socket support. Its performance in terms of requests per second is somewhat behind Blaze\u2019s, and despite Jetty\u0027s industrial adoption, the http4s integration has substantially less industrial uptake.\n* http4s-tomcat is an alternative to http4s-blaze-server, but does not yet have HTTP/2 web socket support. Its performance in terms of requests per second is somewhat behind Blaze\u2019s, and despite Jetty\u0027s industrial adoption, the http4s integration has substantially less industrial uptake.\n\n### References\n\nSee [the Blaze GHSA](https://github.com/http4s/blaze/security/advisories/GHSA-xmw9-q7x9-j5qc) for more on the underlying issue.\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [http4s/http4s](http://github.com/http4s/http4s)\n* Contact us according to the [http4s security policy](https://github.com/http4s/http4s/security/policy)",
"id": "GHSA-xhv5-w9c5-2r2w",
"modified": "2022-10-25T20:51:11Z",
"published": "2021-02-02T21:42:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/http4s/blaze/security/advisories/GHSA-xmw9-q7x9-j5qc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/http4s/http4s/security/advisories/GHSA-xhv5-w9c5-2r2w"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-21294"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/http4s/http4s/commit/987d6589ef79545b9bb2324ac4bdebf82d9a0171"
}
],
"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": "Unbounded connection acceptance in http4s-blaze-server"
}
GHSA-XHW3-H8GQ-2W23
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-29 15:32 – Updated: 2024-10-29 18:30Potential race conditions in IndexedDB could have caused memory corruption, leading to a potentially exploitable crash. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 132 and Thunderbird < 132.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-10468"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-362",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-29T13:15:04Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Potential race conditions in IndexedDB could have caused memory corruption, leading to a potentially exploitable crash. This vulnerability affects Firefox \u003c 132 and Thunderbird \u003c 132.",
"id": "GHSA-xhw3-h8gq-2w23",
"modified": "2024-10-29T18:30:36Z",
"published": "2024-10-29T15:32:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-10468"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1914982"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2024-55"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2024-59"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XHW9-4WQQ-X67V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-27 00:00 – Updated: 2024-10-16 20:46rdiffweb prior to 2.4.8 is vulnerable to a potential Dos attack via an unlimited length "title" field when adding an SSH key. This can result in excess memory consumption, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS). This issue is patched in version 2.4.8. There are no known workarounds.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "rdiffweb"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.4.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-3298"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-09-30T01:29:25Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-26T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "rdiffweb prior to 2.4.8 is vulnerable to a potential Dos attack via an unlimited length \"title\" field when adding an SSH key.\nThis can result in excess memory consumption, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS). This issue is patched in version 2.4.8. There are no known workarounds.",
"id": "GHSA-xhw9-4wqq-x67v",
"modified": "2024-10-16T20:46:23Z",
"published": "2022-09-27T00:00:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-3298"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ikus060/rdiffweb/commit/626cca1b75b6c587afd4241a9692e8929b1921a5"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ikus060/rdiffweb"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/rdiffweb/PYSEC-2022-294.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/f9fedf94-41c9-49c4-8552-e407123a44e7"
}
],
"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": "rdiffweb vulnerable to potential DoS via memory consumption"
}
GHSA-XJ69-M9QQ-8M94
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-11 00:38 – Updated: 2026-03-11 21:37Impact
Quill before version v0.7.1 contains an unbounded memory allocation vulnerability when parsing Mach-O binaries. Exploitation requires that Quill processes an attacker-supplied Mach-O binary, which is most likely in environments such as CI/CD pipelines, shared signing services, or any workflow where externally-submitted binaries are accepted for signing.
When parsing a Mach-O binary, Quill reads several size and count fields from the LC_CODE_SIGNATURE load command and embedded code signing structures (SuperBlob, BlobIndex) and uses them to allocate memory buffers without validating that the values are reasonable or consistent with the actual file size. Affected fields include DataSize, DataOffset, and Size from the load command, Count from the SuperBlob header, and Length from individual blob headers. An attacker can craft a minimal (~4KB) malicious Mach-O binary with extremely large values in these fields, causing Quill to attempt to allocate excessive memory. This leads to memory exhaustion and denial of service, potentially crashing the host process. Both the Quill CLI and Go library are affected when used to parse untrusted Mach-O files.
Patches
Fixed in Quill v0.7.1
Workarounds
None
Credit
Anchore would like to thank opera-aklajn (Opera) for reporting this vulnerability
Resources
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/anchore/quill"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.7.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-31961"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-11T00:38:00Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-11T20:16:17Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nQuill before version `v0.7.1` contains an unbounded memory allocation vulnerability when parsing Mach-O binaries. Exploitation requires that Quill processes an attacker-supplied Mach-O binary, which is most likely in environments such as CI/CD pipelines, shared signing services, or any workflow where externally-submitted binaries are accepted for signing.\n\nWhen parsing a Mach-O binary, Quill reads several size and count fields from the `LC_CODE_SIGNATURE` load command and embedded code signing structures (`SuperBlob`, `BlobIndex`) and uses them to allocate memory buffers without validating that the values are reasonable or consistent with the actual file size. Affected fields include `DataSize`, `DataOffset`, and `Size` from the load command, `Count` from the `SuperBlob` header, and `Length` from individual blob headers. An attacker can craft a minimal (~4KB) malicious Mach-O binary with extremely large values in these fields, causing Quill to attempt to allocate excessive memory. This leads to memory exhaustion and denial of service, potentially crashing the host process. Both the Quill CLI and Go library are affected when used to parse untrusted Mach-O files.\n\n\n### Patches\n\nFixed in Quill `v0.7.1`\n\n\n### Workarounds\n\nNone\n\n### Credit\n\nAnchore would like to thank opera-aklajn (Opera) for reporting this vulnerability\n\n### Resources\n\n- [Inside code signing: hashes (Apple documentation)](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/technotes/tn3126-inside-code-signing-hashes)",
"id": "GHSA-xj69-m9qq-8m94",
"modified": "2026-03-11T21:37:54Z",
"published": "2026-03-11T00:38:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/anchore/quill/security/advisories/GHSA-xj69-m9qq-8m94"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-31961"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/anchore/quill/commit/80cf3fe082678af0ec4f9f8dd93f39189d2dc1fe"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://developer.apple.com/documentation/technotes/tn3126-inside-code-signing-hashes"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/anchore/quill"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/anchore/quill/releases/tag/v0.7.1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Quill has unbounded memory allocation via unvalidated size fields in Mach-O binary parsing"
}
GHSA-XJJR-XCVJ-GQFR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:47 – Updated: 2025-04-20 03:36SAP AS JAVA SSO Authentication Library 2.0 through 3.0 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via large values in the width and height parameters to otp_logon_ui_resources/qr, aka SAP Security Note 2389042.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-7696"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-04-14T18:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "SAP AS JAVA SSO Authentication Library 2.0 through 3.0 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via large values in the width and height parameters to otp_logon_ui_resources/qr, aka SAP Security Note 2389042.",
"id": "GHSA-xjjr-xcvj-gqfr",
"modified": "2025-04-20T03:36:09Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:47:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-7696"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://erpscan.io/advisories/erpscan-17-001-sap-java-dos-bc-iam-sso-otp-package-use-qr-servlet"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
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.