CWE-770
AllowedAllocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Abstraction: Base · Status: Incomplete
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
3030 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-942J-WGV7-6VHF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-05 00:00 – Updated: 2022-05-14 00:01Tenda AC15 US_AC15V1.0BR_V15.03.05.20_multi_TDE01.bin is vulnerable to Buffer Overflow. The stack overflow vulnerability lies in the /goform/setpptpservercfg interface of the web. The sent post data startip and endip are copied to the stack using the sanf function, resulting in stack overflow. Similarly, this vulnerability can be used together with CVE-2021-44971
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-28556"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-05-04T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Tenda AC15 US_AC15V1.0BR_V15.03.05.20_multi_TDE01.bin is vulnerable to Buffer Overflow. The stack overflow vulnerability lies in the /goform/setpptpservercfg interface of the web. The sent post data startip and endip are copied to the stack using the sanf function, resulting in stack overflow. Similarly, this vulnerability can be used together with CVE-2021-44971",
"id": "GHSA-942j-wgv7-6vhf",
"modified": "2022-05-14T00:01:37Z",
"published": "2022-05-05T00:00:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-28556"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/doudoudedi/TendaAC15_vul/blob/main/TendaAC15-vul.md"
}
],
"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-9439-7MJC-Q3P7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-07 15:38 – Updated: 2026-05-07 15:38Improperly controlled modification of Dynamically-Determined object attributes, Allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability in DivvyDrive Information Technologies Inc. DivvyDrive allows Excessive Allocation, Flooding.
This issue affects DivvyDrive: from 4.8.2.19 before 4.8.3.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-14341"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-07T14:16:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improperly controlled modification of Dynamically-Determined object attributes, Allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability in DivvyDrive Information Technologies Inc. DivvyDrive allows Excessive Allocation, Flooding.\n\nThis issue affects DivvyDrive: from 4.8.2.19 before 4.8.3.2.",
"id": "GHSA-9439-7mjc-q3p7",
"modified": "2026-05-07T15:38:40Z",
"published": "2026-05-07T15:38:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-14341"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://siberguvenlik.gov.tr/guvenlik-bildirimleri/detay/tr-26-0182"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9479-9C7F-XQ65
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-30 18:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 04:23A memory leak vulnerability exists in NanoMQ 0.17.2. The vulnerability is located in the file message.c. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability to cause a denial of service attack by causing the program to consume all available memory resources.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-33656"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-30T18:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A memory leak vulnerability exists in NanoMQ 0.17.2. The vulnerability is located in the file message.c. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability to cause a denial of service attack by causing the program to consume all available memory resources.",
"id": "GHSA-9479-9c7f-xq65",
"modified": "2024-04-04T04:23:33Z",
"published": "2023-05-30T18:30:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-33656"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/emqx/nanomq/issues/1164"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/emqx/nanomq/issues/1165#issuecomment-1515667127"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/emqx/nanomq"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-94HH-JMQ8-2FGP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-07 18:56 – Updated: 2025-04-08 17:50Impact
Summary
A vulnerability in Apollo Router allowed queries with deeply nested and reused named fragments to be prohibitively expensive to query plan, specifically due to internal optimizations being frequently bypassed. This could lead to excessive resource consumption and denial of service.
Details
The query planner includes an optimization that significantly speeds up planning for applicable GraphQL selections. However, queries with deeply nested and reused named fragments can generate many selections where this optimization does not apply, leading to significantly longer planning times. Because the query planner does not enforce a timeout, a small number of such queries can exhaust router's thread pool, rendering it inoperable.
Fix/Mitigation
- A new Query Optimization Limit metric has been added:
- This metric approximates the number of selections that cannot be skipped by the existing optimization.
- The metric is checked against a limit to prevent excessive computation.
Given the complexity of query planning optimizations, we will continue refining these solutions based on real-world performance and accuracy tests.
Patches
This has been remediated in apollo-router versions 1.61.2 and 2.1.1.
Workarounds
The only known workaround is "Safelisting" or "Safelisting with IDs only" per Safelisting with Persisted Queries - Apollo GraphQL Docs.
References
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the efforts of the security community in identifying and improving the performance and security of query planning mechanisms.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "apollo-router"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.61.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "apollo-router"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.0.0-alpha.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.1.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-32032"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-04-07T18:56:30Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-07T21:15:43Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "# Impact\n\n## Summary\n\nA vulnerability in Apollo Router allowed queries with deeply nested and reused named fragments to be prohibitively expensive to query plan, specifically due to internal optimizations being frequently bypassed. This could lead to excessive resource consumption and denial of service.\n\n## Details\n\nThe query planner includes an optimization that significantly speeds up planning for applicable GraphQL selections. However, queries with deeply nested and reused named fragments can generate many selections where this optimization does not apply, leading to significantly longer planning times. Because the query planner does not enforce a timeout, a small number of such queries can exhaust router\u0027s thread pool, rendering it inoperable.\n\n## Fix/Mitigation\n\n- A new **Query Optimization Limit** metric has been added:\n - This metric approximates the number of selections that cannot be skipped by the existing optimization.\n - The metric is checked against a limit to prevent excessive computation.\n\nGiven the complexity of query planning optimizations, we will continue refining these solutions based on real-world performance and accuracy tests.\n\n# Patches\n\nThis has been remediated in `apollo-router` versions 1.61.2 and 2.1.1.\n\n# Workarounds\n\nThe only known workaround is \"Safelisting\" or \"Safelisting with IDs only\" per [Safelisting with Persisted Queries - Apollo GraphQL Docs](https://www.apollographql.com/docs/graphos/routing/security/persisted-queries#router-security-levels).\n\n# References\n\n[Query Planning Documentation](https://www.apollographql.com/docs/graphos/reference/federation/query-plans)\n\n## Acknowledgements\n\nWe appreciate the efforts of the security community in identifying and improving the performance and security of query planning mechanisms.",
"id": "GHSA-94hh-jmq8-2fgp",
"modified": "2025-04-08T17:50:00Z",
"published": "2025-04-07T18:56:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apollographql/router/security/advisories/GHSA-94hh-jmq8-2fgp"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-32032"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apollographql/router/commit/ab6675a63174715ea6ff50881fc957831d4e9564"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apollographql/router/commit/bba032e183b861348a466d3123c7137a1ae18952"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/apollographql/router"
}
],
"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": "Apollo Router Query Planner Vulnerable to Excessive Resource Consumption via Optimization Bypass"
}
GHSA-94RC-8X27-4472
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-15 20:13 – Updated: 2026-07-15 22:06Summary
protobufjs 8.2.0 added support for preserving unknown fields encountered during binary decode. Affected versions preserved unknown wire elements in message.$unknowns and did not provide a decode-time option to discard unknown fields before retaining them.
A crafted protobuf payload containing many unknown fields could therefore cause a decoded message to retain substantially more memory than the input size would suggest, even when unknown-field round-tripping is not needed. protobufjs 8.5.0 added the relevant decode-time options, allowing applications that decode untrusted protobuf data to disable unknown-field retention during decode. protobufjs 8.6.2 flips the default so unknown fields are discarded unless explicitly opted into.
Impact
An attacker who can provide protobuf binary data decoded by an application using affected protobufjs versions may be able to increase memory pressure by sending messages with many unknown fields. This can degrade availability or contribute to process termination in services that decode and retain attacker-controlled messages.
This issue affects applications that decode untrusted protobuf binary input and do not need unknown-field round-tripping. Applications that only decode trusted protobuf data, already enforce input-size/concurrency limits, or do not retain decoded messages beyond immediate processing are less directly affected.
Preconditions
- The application must decode protobuf binary data influenced by an attacker.
- The decoded schema must not define the attacker-selected field numbers, causing those fields to be treated as unknown.
- The application must use a protobufjs version that preserves unknown fields but does not provide a decode-time discard option.
- The decoded message, or enough decoded messages concurrently, must remain live long enough for retained unknown-field data to affect memory usage.
Workarounds
Upgrade to protobufjs 8.5.0 or newer and disable unknown-field preservation if not needed: Create a Reader, set reader.discardUnknown = true, and decode from that reader, or make this the default for subsequently created readers by setting Reader.discardUnknown = true. When upgrading to protobufjs 8.6.2 or newer, unknown fields are discarded by default unless opted into by setting discardUnknown = false.
Applications should also continue to enforce input-size, request concurrency, and request timeout limits at their transport or application boundary.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 8.4.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "protobufjs"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "8.2.0"
},
{
"fixed": "8.5.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54270"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-15T20:13:28Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-22T18:16:45Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nprotobufjs 8.2.0 added support for preserving unknown fields encountered during binary decode. Affected versions preserved unknown wire elements in `message.$unknowns` and did not provide a decode-time option to discard unknown fields before retaining them.\n\nA crafted protobuf payload containing many unknown fields could therefore cause a decoded message to retain substantially more memory than the input size would suggest, even when unknown-field round-tripping is not needed. protobufjs 8.5.0 added the relevant decode-time options, allowing applications that decode untrusted protobuf data to disable unknown-field retention during decode. protobufjs 8.6.2 flips the default so unknown fields are discarded unless explicitly opted into.\n\n## Impact\n\nAn attacker who can provide protobuf binary data decoded by an application using affected protobufjs versions may be able to increase memory pressure by sending messages with many unknown fields. This can degrade availability or contribute to process termination in services that decode and retain attacker-controlled messages.\n\nThis issue affects applications that decode untrusted protobuf binary input and do not need unknown-field round-tripping. Applications that only decode trusted protobuf data, already enforce input-size/concurrency limits, or do not retain decoded messages beyond immediate processing are less directly affected.\n\n## Preconditions\n\n* The application must decode protobuf binary data influenced by an attacker.\n* The decoded schema must not define the attacker-selected field numbers, causing those fields to be treated as unknown.\n* The application must use a protobufjs version that preserves unknown fields but does not provide a decode-time discard option.\n* The decoded message, or enough decoded messages concurrently, must remain live long enough for retained unknown-field data to affect memory usage.\n\n## Workarounds\n\nUpgrade to protobufjs 8.5.0 or newer and disable unknown-field preservation if not needed: Create a `Reader`, set `reader.discardUnknown = true`, and decode from that reader, or make this the default for subsequently created readers by setting `Reader.discardUnknown = true`. When upgrading to protobufjs 8.6.2 or newer, unknown fields are discarded by default unless opted into by setting `discardUnknown = false`.\n\nApplications should also continue to enforce input-size, request concurrency, and request timeout limits at their transport or application boundary.",
"id": "GHSA-94rc-8x27-4472",
"modified": "2026-07-15T22:06:10Z",
"published": "2026-06-15T20:13:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/protobufjs/protobuf.js/security/advisories/GHSA-94rc-8x27-4472"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-54270"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/protobufjs/protobuf.js"
}
],
"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": "protobufjs: Memory amplification from preserved unknown fields in binary decode"
}
GHSA-9566-65PP-GHQG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-12 18:31 – Updated: 2025-05-12 18:31IBM 4769 Developers Toolkit 7.0.0 through 7.5.52 could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service in the Hardware Security Module (HSM) due to improper memory allocation of an excessive size.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-3632"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770",
"CWE-789"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-12T17:15:46Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "IBM 4769 Developers Toolkit 7.0.0 through 7.5.52 could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service in the Hardware Security Module (HSM) due to improper memory allocation of an excessive size.",
"id": "GHSA-9566-65pp-ghqg",
"modified": "2025-05-12T18:31:46Z",
"published": "2025-05-12T18:31:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-3632"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7233139"
}
],
"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-95FX-JJR5-F39C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-02 18:29 – Updated: 2026-02-03 16:12Impact
User control of the first argument of the addImage method results in Denial of Service.
If given the possibility to pass unsanitized image data or URLs to the addImage method, a user can provide a harmful BMP file that results in out of memory errors and denial of service. Harmful BMP files have large width and/or height entries in their headers, wich lead to excessive memory allocation.
Other affected methods are: html.
Example attack vector:
import { jsPDF } from "jspdf"
// malicious BMP image data with large width/height headers
const payload = ...
const doc = new jsPDF();
doc.addImage(payload, "BMP", 0, 0, 100, 100);
Patches
The vulnerability has been fixed in jsPDF 4.1.0. Upgrade to jspdf@>=4.1.0.
Workarounds
Sanitize image data or URLs before passing it to the addImage method or one of the other affected methods.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.0.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "jspdf"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-24133"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-02T18:29:13Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-02T23:16:08Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nUser control of the first argument of the `addImage` method results in Denial of Service.\n\nIf given the possibility to pass unsanitized image data or URLs to the `addImage` method, a user can provide a harmful BMP file that results in out of memory errors and denial of service. Harmful BMP files have large width and/or height entries in their headers, wich lead to excessive memory allocation.\n\nOther affected methods are: `html`.\n\nExample attack vector:\n\n```js\nimport { jsPDF } from \"jspdf\" \n\n// malicious BMP image data with large width/height headers\nconst payload = ...\n\nconst doc = new jsPDF();\n\ndoc.addImage(payload, \"BMP\", 0, 0, 100, 100);\n```\n\n### Patches\n\nThe vulnerability has been fixed in jsPDF 4.1.0. Upgrade to jspdf@\u003e=4.1.0.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nSanitize image data or URLs before passing it to the addImage method or one of the other affected methods.",
"id": "GHSA-95fx-jjr5-f39c",
"modified": "2026-02-03T16:12:57Z",
"published": "2026-02-02T18:29:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/parallax/jsPDF/security/advisories/GHSA-95fx-jjr5-f39c"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-24133"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/parallax/jsPDF/commit/ae4b93f76d8fc1baa5614bd5fdb5d174c3b85f0d"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/parallax/jsPDF"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/parallax/jsPDF/releases/tag/v4.1.0"
}
],
"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:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "jsPDF Vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via Unvalidated BMP Dimensions in BMPDecoder"
}
GHSA-95H4-W6J8-2RP8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-02 15:31 – Updated: 2026-06-30 03:35A flaw was found in Undertow where malformed client requests can trigger server-side stream resets without triggering abuse counters. This issue, referred to as the "MadeYouReset" attack, allows malicious clients to induce excessive server workload by repeatedly causing server-side stream aborts. While not a protocol bug, this highlights a common implementation weakness that can be exploited to cause a denial of service (DoS).
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.undertow:undertow-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.2.38.Final"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.undertow:undertow-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.3.0.Alpha1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.3.20.Final"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-9784"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-404",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-09-02T20:54:27Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-02T14:15:36Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A flaw was found in Undertow where malformed client requests can trigger server-side stream resets without triggering abuse counters. This issue, referred to as the \"MadeYouReset\" attack, allows malicious clients to induce excessive server workload by repeatedly causing server-side stream aborts. While not a protocol bug, this highlights a common implementation weakness that can be exploited to cause a denial of service (DoS).",
"id": "GHSA-95h4-w6j8-2rp8",
"modified": "2026-06-30T03:35:21Z",
"published": "2025-09-02T15:31:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-9784"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/undertow-io/undertow/pull/1805"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/undertow-io/undertow/pull/1804"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/undertow-io/undertow/pull/1803"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/undertow-io/undertow/pull/1802"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/undertow-io/undertow/pull/1778"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/767506"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kb.cert.org/vuls/id/767506"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/UNDERTOW-2598"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/undertow-io/undertow/releases/tag/2.2.38.Final"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/undertow-io/undertow"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2392306"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-9784"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4924"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4917"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4916"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4915"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:3892"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:3891"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:3889"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33372"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33371"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:0386"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:0384"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:0383"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:23143"
}
],
"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": "Undertow MadeYouReset HTTP/2 DDoS Vulnerability"
}
GHSA-95M7-F345-M9H8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:04 – Updated: 2026-06-04 21:31ABB, Phoenix Contact, Schneider Electric, Siemens, WAGO - Programmable Logic Controllers, multiple versions. Researchers have found some controllers are susceptible to a denial-of-service attack due to a flood of network packets.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-10953"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-04-17T15:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "ABB, Phoenix Contact, Schneider Electric, Siemens, WAGO - Programmable Logic Controllers, multiple versions. Researchers have found some controllers are susceptible to a denial-of-service attack due to a flood of network packets.",
"id": "GHSA-95m7-f345-m9h8",
"modified": "2026-06-04T21:31:16Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:04:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-10953"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cisagov/CSAF/blob/develop/csaf_files/OT/white/2019/icsa-19-106-03.json"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-19-106-03"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/108413"
}
],
"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-95PR-FXF5-86GV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-11 17:15 – Updated: 2024-04-11 17:15Maliciously-crafted software artifacts can cause denial of service of the machine running Cosign, thereby impacting all services on the machine. The root cause is that Cosign creates slices based on the number of signatures, manifests or attestations in untrusted artifacts. As such, the untrusted artifact can control the amount of memory that Cosign allocates.
As an example, these lines demonstrate the problem:
https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/blob/286a98a4a99c1b2f32f84b0d560e324100312280/pkg/oci/remote/signatures.go#L56-L70
This Get() method gets the manifest of the image, allocates a slice equal to the length of the layers in the manifest, loops through the layers and adds a new signature to the slice.
The exact issue is Cosign allocates excessive memory on the lines that creates a slice of the same length as the manifests.
Remediation
Update to the latest version of Cosign, where the number of attestations, signatures and manifests has been limited to a reasonable value.
Cosign PoC
In the case of this API (also referenced above):
https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/blob/286a98a4a99c1b2f32f84b0d560e324100312280/pkg/oci/remote/signatures.go#L56-L70
… The first line can contain a length that is safe for the system and will not throw a runtime panic or be blocked by other safety mechanisms. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the length of m, err := s.Manifest() is the max allowed (by the machine without throwing OOM panics) manifests minus 1. When Cosign then allocates a new slice on this line: signatures := make([]oci.Signature, 0, len(m.Layers)), Cosign will allocate more memory than is available and the machine will be denied of service, causing Cosign and all other services on the machine to be unavailable.
To illustrate the issue here, we run a modified version of TestSignedImageIndex() in pkg/oci/remote:
https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/blob/14795db16417579fac0c00c11e166868d7976b61/pkg/oci/remote/index_test.go#L31-L57
Here, wantLayers is the number of manifests from these lines:
https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/blob/286a98a4a99c1b2f32f84b0d560e324100312280/pkg/oci/remote/signatures.go#L56-L60
To test this, we want to make wantLayers high enough to not cause a memory on its own but still trigger the machine-wide OOM when a slice gets create with the same length. On my local machine, it would take hours to create a slice of layers that fulfils that criteria, so instead I modify the Cosign production code to reflect a long list of manifests:
// Get implements oci.Signatures
func (s *sigs) Get() ([]oci.Signature, error) {
m, err := s.Manifest()
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
// Here we imitate a long list of manifests
ms := make([]byte, 2600000000) // imitate a long list of manifests
signatures := make([]oci.Signature, 0, len(ms))
panic("Done")
//signatures := make([]oci.Signature, 0, len(m.Layers))
for _, desc := range m.Layers {
With this modified code, if we can cause an OOM without triggering the panic("Done"), we have succeeded.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/sigstore/cosign"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.2.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.2.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/sigstore/cosign/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.2.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-29903"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-04-11T17:15:46Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-10T23:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Maliciously-crafted software artifacts can cause denial of service of the machine running Cosign, thereby impacting all services on the machine. The root cause is that Cosign creates slices based on the number of signatures, manifests or attestations in untrusted artifacts. As such, the untrusted artifact can control the amount of memory that Cosign allocates. \n\nAs an example, these lines demonstrate the problem:\n\nhttps://github.com/sigstore/cosign/blob/286a98a4a99c1b2f32f84b0d560e324100312280/pkg/oci/remote/signatures.go#L56-L70 \n\nThis `Get()` method gets the manifest of the image, allocates a slice equal to the length of the layers in the manifest, loops through the layers and adds a new signature to the slice.\n\nThe exact issue is Cosign allocates excessive memory on the lines that creates a slice of the same length as the manifests. \n\n## Remediation\n\nUpdate to the latest version of Cosign, where the number of attestations, signatures and manifests has been limited to a reasonable value.\n\n## Cosign PoC\n\nIn the case of this API (also referenced above):\n\nhttps://github.com/sigstore/cosign/blob/286a98a4a99c1b2f32f84b0d560e324100312280/pkg/oci/remote/signatures.go#L56-L70\n\n\u2026 The first line can contain a length that is safe for the system and will not throw a runtime panic or be blocked by other safety mechanisms. For the sake of argument, let\u2019s say that the length of `m, err := s.Manifest()` is the max allowed (by the machine without throwing OOM panics) manifests minus 1. When Cosign then allocates a new slice on this line: `signatures := make([]oci.Signature, 0, len(m.Layers))`, Cosign will allocate more memory than is available and the machine will be denied of service, causing Cosign and all other services on the machine to be unavailable.\n\nTo illustrate the issue here, we run a modified version of `TestSignedImageIndex()` in `pkg/oci/remote`:\n\nhttps://github.com/sigstore/cosign/blob/14795db16417579fac0c00c11e166868d7976b61/pkg/oci/remote/index_test.go#L31-L57\n\nHere, `wantLayers` is the number of manifests from these lines:\n\nhttps://github.com/sigstore/cosign/blob/286a98a4a99c1b2f32f84b0d560e324100312280/pkg/oci/remote/signatures.go#L56-L60\n\nTo test this, we want to make `wantLayers` high enough to not cause a memory on its own but still trigger the machine-wide OOM when a slice gets create with the same length. On my local machine, it would take hours to create a slice of layers that fulfils that criteria, so instead I modify the Cosign production code to reflect a long list of manifests:\n\n```golang\n// Get implements oci.Signatures\nfunc (s *sigs) Get() ([]oci.Signature, error) {\n m, err := s.Manifest()\n if err != nil {\n return nil, err\n }\n // Here we imitate a long list of manifests\n ms := make([]byte, 2600000000) // imitate a long list of manifests\n signatures := make([]oci.Signature, 0, len(ms))\n panic(\"Done\")\n //signatures := make([]oci.Signature, 0, len(m.Layers))\n for _, desc := range m.Layers {\n```\n\nWith this modified code, if we can cause an OOM without triggering the `panic(\"Done\")`, we have succeeded.",
"id": "GHSA-95pr-fxf5-86gv",
"modified": "2024-04-11T17:15:46Z",
"published": "2024-04-11T17:15:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/security/advisories/GHSA-95pr-fxf5-86gv"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-29903"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/commit/629f5f8fa672973503edde75f84dcd984637629e"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/sigstore/cosign"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/blob/14795db16417579fac0c00c11e166868d7976b61/pkg/cosign/verify.go#L948-L955"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/blob/286a98a4a99c1b2f32f84b0d560e324100312280/pkg/oci/remote/signatures.go#L56-L70"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/releases/tag/v2.2.4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Cosign malicious artifacts can cause machine-wide DoS"
}
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.