CWE-770
AllowedAllocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Abstraction: Base · Status: Incomplete
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
3023 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-G5M3-WP9H-RPHV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-23 21:31 – Updated: 2025-06-23 21:31IBM InfoSphere Information Server 11.7.0.0 through 11.7.1.6 could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service due to insufficient validation of incoming request resources.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-3221"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-21T13:15:21Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "IBM InfoSphere Information Server 11.7.0.0 through 11.7.1.6 could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service due to insufficient validation of incoming request resources.",
"id": "GHSA-g5m3-wp9h-rphv",
"modified": "2025-06-23T21:31:50Z",
"published": "2025-06-23T21:31:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-3221"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7235496"
}
],
"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-G6X7-JQ8P-6Q9Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-12 15:28 – Updated: 2026-02-12 22:07Summary
An attacker can cause excessive memory consumption in webtransport-go's session implementation by sending a WT_CLOSE_SESSION capsule containing an excessively large Application Error Message. The implementation does not enforce the draft-mandated limit of 1024 bytes on this field, allowing a peer to send an arbitrarily large message payload that is fully read and stored in memory.
This allows an attacker to consume an arbitrary amount of memory. The attacker must transmit the full payload to achieve the memory consumption, but the lack of any upper bound makes large-scale attacks feasible given sufficient bandwidth.
Details
WebTransport over HTTP/3, as defined in draft-ietf-webtrans-http3, uses the WT_CLOSE_SESSION capsule to signal session termination with an optional detailed error. The draft specifies that the length of the Application Error Message in this capsule MUST NOT exceed 1024 bytes. In affected versions of webtransport-go, the parser does not enforce this 1024-byte maximum when processing incoming WT_CLOSE_SESSION capsules. A peer can send a capsule with an excessively large payload, forcing the recipient to allocate and buffer the full amount of transmitted data without bound.
The Fix
webtransport-go now limits the length of the parsed Application Error Message to 1024 bytes in WT_CLOSE_SESSION capsules by reading no more than this amount. This prevents excessive memory consumption.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.9.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/quic-go/webtransport-go"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.3.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.10.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-21434"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-12T15:28:52Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-12T19:15:51Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\nAn attacker can cause excessive memory consumption in webtransport-go\u0027s session implementation by sending a WT_CLOSE_SESSION capsule containing an excessively large Application Error Message. The implementation does not enforce the draft-mandated limit of 1024 bytes on this field, allowing a peer to send an arbitrarily large message payload that is fully read and stored in memory.\n\nThis allows an attacker to consume an arbitrary amount of memory. The attacker must transmit the full payload to achieve the memory consumption, but the lack of any upper bound makes large-scale attacks feasible given sufficient bandwidth.\n\n## Details\nWebTransport over HTTP/3, as defined in draft-ietf-webtrans-http3, uses the WT_CLOSE_SESSION capsule to signal session termination with an optional detailed error. The draft specifies that the length of the Application Error Message in this capsule MUST NOT exceed 1024 bytes.\nIn affected versions of webtransport-go, the parser does not enforce this 1024-byte maximum when processing incoming WT_CLOSE_SESSION capsules. A peer can send a capsule with an excessively large payload, forcing the recipient to allocate and buffer the full amount of transmitted data without bound.\n\n## The Fix\nwebtransport-go now limits the length of the parsed Application Error Message to 1024 bytes in WT_CLOSE_SESSION capsules by reading no more than this amount. This prevents excessive memory consumption.",
"id": "GHSA-g6x7-jq8p-6q9q",
"modified": "2026-02-12T22:07:29Z",
"published": "2026-02-12T15:28:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/webtransport-go/security/advisories/GHSA-g6x7-jq8p-6q9q"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-21434"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/webtransport-go"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/webtransport-go/releases/tag/v0.10.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "webtransport-go: Memory Exhaustion Attack due to Missing Length Check in WT_CLOSE_SESSION Capsule"
}
GHSA-G74R-JWJM-HPVJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-19 00:00 – Updated: 2022-03-03 00:01Pexip Infinity before 27.0 has improper WebRTC input validation. An unauthenticated remote attacker can use excessive resources, temporarily causing denial of service.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-23228"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-02-18T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Pexip Infinity before 27.0 has improper WebRTC input validation. An unauthenticated remote attacker can use excessive resources, temporarily causing denial of service.",
"id": "GHSA-g74r-jwjm-hpvj",
"modified": "2022-03-03T00:01:13Z",
"published": "2022-02-19T00:00:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-23228"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.pexip.com/admin/security_bulletins.htm"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-G754-HX8W-X2G6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-11 16:48 – Updated: 2025-12-17 00:36Summary
An attacker can cause excessive memory allocation in quic-go's HTTP/3 client and server implementations by sending a QPACK-encoded HEADERS frame that decodes into a large header field section (many unique header names and/or large values). The implementation builds an http.Header (used on the http.Request and http.Response, respectively), while only enforcing limits on the size of the (QPACK-compressed) HEADERS frame, but not on the decoded header, leading to memory exhaustion.
Impact
A misbehaving or malicious peer can cause a denial-of-service (DoS) attack on quic-go's HTTP/3 servers or clients by triggering excessive memory allocation, potentially leading to crashes or exhaustion. It affects both servers and clients due to symmetric header construction.
Details
In HTTP/3, headers are compressed using QPACK (RFC 9204). quic-go's HTTP/3 server (and client) decodes the QPACK-encoded HEADERS frame into header fields, then constructs an http.Request (or response).
http3.Server.MaxHeaderBytes and http3.Transport.MaxResponseHeaderBytes, respectively, limit encoded HEADERS frame size (default: 1 MB server, 10 MB client), but not decoded size. A maliciously crafted HEADERS frame can expand to ~50x the encoded size using QPACK static table entries with long names / values.
RFC 9114 requires enforcing decoded field section size limits via SETTINGS, which quic-go did not do.
The Fix
quic-go now enforces RFC 9114 decoded field section size limits, sending SETTINGS_MAX_FIELD_SECTION_SIZE and using incremental QPACK decoding to check the header size after each entry, aborting early on violations with HTTP 431 (on the server side) and stream reset (on the client side).
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/quic-go/quic-go"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.57.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-64702"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-12-11T16:48:27Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-11T21:15:54Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nAn attacker can cause excessive memory allocation in quic-go\u0027s HTTP/3 client and server implementations by sending a QPACK-encoded HEADERS frame that decodes into a large header field section (many unique header names and/or large values). The implementation builds an `http.Header` (used on the `http.Request` and `http.Response`, respectively), while only enforcing limits on the size of the (QPACK-compressed) HEADERS frame, but not on the decoded header, leading to memory exhaustion.\n\n## Impact\n\nA misbehaving or malicious peer can cause a denial-of-service (DoS) attack on quic-go\u0027s HTTP/3 servers or clients by triggering excessive memory allocation, potentially leading to crashes or exhaustion. It affects both servers and clients due to symmetric header construction.\n\n## Details\n\nIn HTTP/3, headers are compressed using QPACK (RFC 9204). quic-go\u0027s HTTP/3 server (and client) decodes the QPACK-encoded HEADERS frame into header fields, then constructs an http.Request (or response).\n\n`http3.Server.MaxHeaderBytes` and `http3.Transport.MaxResponseHeaderBytes`, respectively, limit encoded HEADERS frame size (default: 1 MB server, 10 MB client), but not decoded size. A maliciously crafted HEADERS frame can expand to ~50x the encoded size using QPACK static table entries with long names / values.\n\nRFC 9114 requires enforcing decoded field section size limits via SETTINGS, which quic-go did not do.\n\n## The Fix\n\nquic-go now enforces RFC 9114 decoded field section size limits, sending SETTINGS_MAX_FIELD_SECTION_SIZE and using incremental QPACK decoding to check the header size after each entry, aborting early on violations with HTTP 431 (on the server side) and stream reset (on the client side).",
"id": "GHSA-g754-hx8w-x2g6",
"modified": "2025-12-17T00:36:27Z",
"published": "2025-12-11T16:48:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/quic-go/security/advisories/GHSA-g754-hx8w-x2g6"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-64702"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/quic-go/commit/5b2d2129f8315da41e01eff0a847ab38a34e83a8"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/quic-go"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "quic-go HTTP/3 QPACK Header Expansion DoS"
}
GHSA-G76F-GJFX-4RPR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-04 18:30 – Updated: 2024-09-04 20:32In Eclipse Vert.x version 4.3.0 to 4.5.9, the gRPC server does not limit the maximum length of message payload (Maven GAV: io.vertx:vertx-grpc-server and io.vertx:vertx-grpc-client).
This is fixed in the 4.5.10 version.
Note this does not affect the Vert.x gRPC server based grpc-java and Netty libraries (Maven GAV: io.vertx:vertx-grpc)
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.vertx:vertx-grpc-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.3.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.5.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.vertx:vertx-grpc-client"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.3.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.5.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-8391"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-09-04T20:32:19Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-04T16:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In Eclipse Vert.x version 4.3.0 to 4.5.9, the gRPC server does not limit the maximum length of message payload (Maven GAV: io.vertx:vertx-grpc-server and io.vertx:vertx-grpc-client).\u00a0\n\nThis is fixed in the 4.5.10 version.\u00a0\n\nNote this does not affect the Vert.x gRPC server based grpc-java and Netty libraries (Maven GAV: io.vertx:vertx-grpc)",
"id": "GHSA-g76f-gjfx-4rpr",
"modified": "2024-09-04T20:32:19Z",
"published": "2024-09-04T18:30:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-8391"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse-vertx/vertx-grpc/issues/113"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse-vertx/vertx-grpc/commit/a76b14a92410c89fcc590c5852d800b565916ccf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse-vertx/vertx-grpc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/cve-assignement/-/issues/31"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Vertx gRPC server does not limit the maximum message size"
}
GHSA-G7F3-828F-7H7M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-10 22:54 – Updated: 2025-11-03 18:31Summary
Authlib’s JWE zip=DEF path performs unbounded DEFLATE decompression. A very small ciphertext can expand into tens or hundreds of megabytes on decrypt, allowing an attacker who can supply decryptable tokens to exhaust memory and CPU and cause denial of service.
Details
- Affected component: Authlib JOSE, JWE
zip=DEF(DEFLATE) support. - In
authlib/authlib/jose/rfc7518/jwe_zips.py,DeflateZipAlgorithm.decompresscallszlib.decompress(s, -zlib.MAX_WBITS)without a maximum output limit. This permits unbounded expansion of compressed payloads. - In the JWE decode flow (
authlib/authlib/jose/rfc7516/jwe.py), when the protected header contains"zip": "DEF", the library routes the decrypted ciphertext into thedecompressmethod and assigns the fully decompressed bytes to the plaintext field before returning it. No streaming limit or quota is applied. - Because DEFLATE achieves extremely high ratios on highly repetitive input, an attacker can craft a tiny
zip=DEFciphertext that inflates to a very large plaintext during decrypt, spiking RSS and CPU. Repeated requests can starve the process or host.
Code references (from this repository version):
- authlib/authlib/jose/rfc7518/jwe_zips.py – DeflateZipAlgorithm.decompress uses unbounded zlib.decompress.
- authlib/authlib/jose/rfc7516/jwe.py – JWE decode path applies zip_.decompress(msg) when zip=DEF is present in the header.
Contrast: The joserfc project guards zip=DEF decompression with a fixed maximum (256 KB) and raises ExceededSizeError if output would exceed this limit, preventing the bomb. Authlib lacks such a guard in this codebase snapshot.
PoC
Environment: Python 3.10+ inside a venv; Authlib installed editable from this repository so source changes are visible. The PoC script demonstrates both a benign and a compressible-bomb payload and prints wall/CPU time, RSS, and size ratios.
1) Create venv and install Authlib (editable): Set current directory to /authlib Download jwe_deflate_dos_demo.py in /authlib
python3 -m venv .venv
.venv/bin/pip install --upgrade pip
.venv/bin/pip install -e .
2) Run the PoC (included in this repo):
.venv/bin/python /authlib/jwe_deflate_dos_demo.py --size 50 --max-rss-mb 2048
Sample output (abridged):
LOCAL TEST ONLY – do not send to third-party systems.
Runtime: Python 3.13.6 / Authlib 1.6.4 / zip=DEF via A256GCM
[CASE] normal plaintext=13B ciphertext=117B decompressed=13B wall_s=0.000 cpu_s=0.000 peak_rss_mb=31.0 ratio=0.1
[CASE] malicious plaintext=50MB ciphertext=~4KB decompressed=50MB wall_s=~2.3 cpu_s=~2.2 peak_rss_mb=800+ ratio=12500+
The second case shows the decompression spike: a few KB of ciphertext forces allocation and processing of ~50 MB during decrypt. Repeated requests can quickly exhaust available memory and CPU.
Reproduction notes:
- Algorithm: alg=dir, enc=A256GCM, header includes { "zip": "DEF" }.
- The PoC uses a 32‑byte local symmetric key and a highly compressible payload ("A" * N).
- Increase --size to stress memory; the --max-rss-mb flag helps avoid destabilizing the host during testing.
Impact
- Effect: Denial of service (memory/CPU exhaustion) during JWE decrypt of
zip=DEFtokens. - Who is impacted: Any service that uses Authlib to decrypt JWE tokens with
zip=DEFand where an attacker can submit tokens that will be successfully decrypted (e.g., shareddirkey, token reflection, or compromised/abused issuers). - Confidentiality/Integrity: No direct C/I impact; availability impact is high.
Severity (CVSS v3.1)
Base vector (typical shared‑secret scenario where the attacker must produce a decryptable token):
- CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H → 6.5 (MEDIUM)
Rationale:
- Network‑reachable (AV:N), low complexity (AC:L), no user interaction (UI:N), scope unchanged (S:U).
- Attacker must hold or gain ability to mint a decryptable token for the target (PR:L) — common with alg=dir and shared keys across services.
- No confidentiality or integrity loss (C:N/I:N); availability is severely impacted (A:H) due to decompression expansion.
If arbitrary unprivileged parties can submit JWEs that will be decrypted (PR:N), the base vector becomes:
- CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H → 7.5 (HIGH)
Mitigations / Workarounds
- Reject or strip
zip=DEFfor inbound JWEs at the application boundary until a fix is available. - Fork and add a bounded decompression guard (e.g.,
zlib.decompress(..., max_length)viadecompressobj().decompress(data, MAX_SIZE)), returning an error when output exceeds a safe limit. - Enforce strict maximum token sizes and fail fast on oversized inputs; combine with rate limiting.
Remediation Guidance (for maintainers)
- Mirror
joserfc’s approach: add a conservative maximum output size (e.g., 256 KB by default) and raise a specific error when exceeded; document a controlled way to raise this ceiling for trusted environments. - Consider streaming decode with chunked limits to avoid large single allocations.
References
- Authlib source:
authlib/authlib/jose/rfc7518/jwe_zips.py,authlib/authlib/jose/rfc7516/jwe.py
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "authlib"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.6.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-62706"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-10-10T22:54:03Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-22T22:15:35Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n_Authlib\u2019s JWE `zip=DEF` path performs unbounded DEFLATE decompression. A very small ciphertext can expand into tens or hundreds of megabytes on decrypt, allowing an attacker who can supply decryptable tokens to exhaust memory and CPU and cause denial of service._\n\n### Details\n- Affected component: Authlib JOSE, JWE `zip=DEF` (DEFLATE) support.\n- In `authlib/authlib/jose/rfc7518/jwe_zips.py`, `DeflateZipAlgorithm.decompress` calls `zlib.decompress(s, -zlib.MAX_WBITS)` without a maximum output limit. This permits unbounded expansion of compressed payloads.\n- In the JWE decode flow (`authlib/authlib/jose/rfc7516/jwe.py`), when the protected header contains `\"zip\": \"DEF\"`, the library routes the decrypted ciphertext into the `decompress` method and assigns the fully decompressed bytes to the plaintext field before returning it. No streaming limit or quota is applied.\n- Because DEFLATE achieves extremely high ratios on highly repetitive input, an attacker can craft a tiny `zip=DEF` ciphertext that inflates to a very large plaintext during decrypt, spiking RSS and CPU. Repeated requests can starve the process or host.\n\nCode references (from this repository version):\n- `authlib/authlib/jose/rfc7518/jwe_zips.py` \u2013 `DeflateZipAlgorithm.decompress` uses unbounded `zlib.decompress`.\n- `authlib/authlib/jose/rfc7516/jwe.py` \u2013 JWE decode path applies `zip_.decompress(msg)` when `zip=DEF` is present in the header.\n\nContrast: The `joserfc` project guards `zip=DEF` decompression with a fixed maximum (256 KB) and raises `ExceededSizeError` if output would exceed this limit, preventing the bomb. Authlib lacks such a guard in this codebase snapshot.\n\n### PoC\nEnvironment: Python 3.10+ inside a venv; Authlib installed editable from this repository so source changes are visible. The PoC script demonstrates both a benign and a compressible-bomb payload and prints wall/CPU time, RSS, and size ratios.\n\n1) Create venv and install Authlib (editable):\nSet current directory to /authlib\nDownload [jwe_deflate_dos_demo.py](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/22519553/jwe_deflate_dos_demo.py) in /authlib\n```\npython3 -m venv .venv\n.venv/bin/pip install --upgrade pip\n.venv/bin/pip install -e .\n```\n\n2) Run the PoC (included in this repo):\n```\n.venv/bin/python /authlib/jwe_deflate_dos_demo.py --size 50 --max-rss-mb 2048\n```\n\nSample output (abridged):\n```\nLOCAL TEST ONLY \u2013 do not send to third-party systems.\nRuntime: Python 3.13.6 / Authlib 1.6.4 / zip=DEF via A256GCM\n[CASE] normal plaintext=13B ciphertext=117B decompressed=13B wall_s=0.000 cpu_s=0.000 peak_rss_mb=31.0 ratio=0.1\n[CASE] malicious plaintext=50MB ciphertext=~4KB decompressed=50MB wall_s=~2.3 cpu_s=~2.2 peak_rss_mb=800+ ratio=12500+\n```\n\nThe second case shows the decompression spike: a few KB of ciphertext forces allocation and processing of ~50 MB during decrypt. Repeated requests can quickly exhaust available memory and CPU.\n\nReproduction notes:\n- Algorithm: `alg=dir`, `enc=A256GCM`, header includes `{ \"zip\": \"DEF\" }`.\n- The PoC uses a 32\u2011byte local symmetric key and a highly compressible payload (`\"A\" * N`).\n- Increase `--size` to stress memory; the `--max-rss-mb` flag helps avoid destabilizing the host during testing.\n\n### Impact\n- Effect: Denial of service (memory/CPU exhaustion) during JWE decrypt of `zip=DEF` tokens.\n- Who is impacted: Any service that uses Authlib to decrypt JWE tokens with `zip=DEF` and where an attacker can submit tokens that will be successfully decrypted (e.g., shared `dir` key, token reflection, or compromised/abused issuers).\n- Confidentiality/Integrity: No direct C/I impact; availability impact is high.\n\n### Severity (CVSS v3.1)\nBase vector (typical shared\u2011secret scenario where the attacker must produce a decryptable token):\n- `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H` \u2192 6.5 (MEDIUM)\n\n**Rationale:**\n- Network\u2011reachable (AV:N), low complexity (AC:L), no user interaction (UI:N), scope unchanged (S:U).\n- Attacker must hold or gain ability to mint a decryptable token for the target (PR:L) \u2014 common with `alg=dir` and shared keys across services.\n- No confidentiality or integrity loss (C:N/I:N); availability is severely impacted (A:H) due to decompression expansion.\nIf arbitrary unprivileged parties can submit JWEs that will be decrypted (PR:N), the base vector becomes:\n- `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H` \u2192 7.5 (HIGH)\n\n### Mitigations / Workarounds\n- Reject or strip `zip=DEF` for inbound JWEs at the application boundary until a fix is available.\n- Fork and add a bounded decompression guard (e.g., `zlib.decompress(..., max_length)` via `decompressobj().decompress(data, MAX_SIZE)`), returning an error when output exceeds a safe limit.\n- Enforce strict maximum token sizes and fail fast on oversized inputs; combine with rate limiting.\n\n### Remediation Guidance (for maintainers)\n- Mirror `joserfc`\u2019s approach: add a conservative maximum output size (e.g., 256 KB by default) and raise a specific error when exceeded; document a controlled way to raise this ceiling for trusted environments.\n- Consider streaming decode with chunked limits to avoid large single allocations.\n\n### References\n- Authlib source: `authlib/authlib/jose/rfc7518/jwe_zips.py`, `authlib/authlib/jose/rfc7516/jwe.py`",
"id": "GHSA-g7f3-828f-7h7m",
"modified": "2025-11-03T18:31:46Z",
"published": "2025-10-10T22:54:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/authlib/authlib/security/advisories/GHSA-g7f3-828f-7h7m"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-62706"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/authlib/authlib/commit/e0863d5129316b1790eee5f14cece32a03b8184d"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/authlib/authlib"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/10/msg00032.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Authlib : JWE zip=DEF decompression bomb enables DoS"
}
GHSA-G84X-MCQJ-X9QQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-05 23:13 – Updated: 2026-01-06 16:06Summary
Handling of chunked messages can result in excessive blocking CPU usage when receiving a large number of chunks.
Impact
If an application makes use of the request.read() method in an endpoint, it may be possible for an attacker to cause the server to spend a moderate amount of blocking CPU time (e.g. 1 second) while processing the request. This could potentially lead to DoS as the server would be unable to handle other requests during that time.
Patch: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/dc3170b56904bdf814228fae70a5501a42a6c712 Patch: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/4ed97a4e46eaf61bd0f05063245f613469700229
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.13.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "aiohttp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.13.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-69229"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-01-05T23:13:29Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-06T00:15:48Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nHandling of chunked messages can result in excessive blocking CPU usage when receiving a large number of chunks.\n\n### Impact\n\nIf an application makes use of the `request.read()` method in an endpoint, it may be possible for an attacker to cause the server to spend a moderate amount of blocking CPU time (e.g. 1 second) while processing the request. This could potentially lead to DoS as the server would be unable to handle other requests during that time.\n\n-----\n\nPatch: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/dc3170b56904bdf814228fae70a5501a42a6c712\nPatch: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/4ed97a4e46eaf61bd0f05063245f613469700229",
"id": "GHSA-g84x-mcqj-x9qq",
"modified": "2026-01-06T16:06:58Z",
"published": "2026-01-05T23:13:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/security/advisories/GHSA-g84x-mcqj-x9qq"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-69229"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/4ed97a4e46eaf61bd0f05063245f613469700229"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/dc3170b56904bdf814228fae70a5501a42a6c712"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp"
}
],
"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/E:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "AIOHTTP vulnerable to DoS through chunked messages"
}
GHSA-G85R-6X2Q-45W7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-15 20:22 – Updated: 2025-01-09 22:04Impact
A vulnerability discovered in the ImageSharp library, where the processing of specially crafted files can lead to excessive memory usage in image decoders. The vulnerability is triggered when ImageSharp attempts to process image files that are designed to exploit this flaw.
This flaw can be exploited to cause a denial of service (DoS) by depleting process memory, thereby affecting applications and services that rely on ImageSharp for image processing tasks. Users and administrators are advised to update to the latest version of ImageSharp that addresses this vulnerability to mitigate the risk of exploitation.
Patches
The problem has been patched. All users are advised to upgrade to v3.1.4 or v2.1.8.
Workarounds
Before calling Image.Decode(Async), use Image.Identify to determine the image dimensions in order to enforce a limit.
References
- ImageSharp: Security Considerations
- ImageSharp.Web: Securing Processing Commands
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "SixLabors.ImageSharp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.1.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "SixLabors.ImageSharp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.1.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-32035"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770",
"CWE-789"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-04-15T20:22:54Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-15T20:15:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nA vulnerability discovered in the ImageSharp library, where the processing of specially crafted files can lead to excessive memory usage in image decoders. The vulnerability is triggered when ImageSharp attempts to process image files that are designed to exploit this flaw. \n\nThis flaw can be exploited to cause a denial of service (DoS) by depleting process memory, thereby affecting applications and services that rely on ImageSharp for image processing tasks. Users and administrators are advised to update to the latest version of ImageSharp that addresses this vulnerability to mitigate the risk of exploitation.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe problem has been patched. All users are advised to upgrade to v3.1.4 or v2.1.8.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nBefore calling `Image.Decode(Async)`, use `Image.Identify` to determine the image dimensions in order to enforce a limit.\n\n### References\n\n- ImageSharp: [Security Considerations](https://docs.sixlabors.com/articles/imagesharp/security.html)\n- ImageSharp.Web: [Securing Processing Commands](https://docs.sixlabors.com/articles/imagesharp.web/processingcommands.html#securing-processing-commands)",
"id": "GHSA-g85r-6x2q-45w7",
"modified": "2025-01-09T22:04:41Z",
"published": "2024-04-15T20:22:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SixLabors/ImageSharp/security/advisories/GHSA-g85r-6x2q-45w7"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-32035"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SixLabors/ImageSharp/commit/b6b08ac3e7cea8da5ac1e90f7c0b67dd254535c3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SixLabors/ImageSharp/commit/f21d64188e59ae9464ff462056a5e29d8e618b27"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.sixlabors.com/articles/imagesharp.web/processingcommands.html#securing-processing-commands"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.sixlabors.com/articles/imagesharp/security.html"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/SixLabors/ImageSharp"
}
],
"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": "SixLabors.ImageSharp vulnerable to Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value"
}
GHSA-G877-JJJQ-5FJC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-17 12:30 – Updated: 2026-05-12 12:32In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
dma: fix call order in dmam_free_coherent
dmam_free_coherent() frees a DMA allocation, which makes the freed vaddr available for reuse, then calls devres_destroy() to remove and free the data structure used to track the DMA allocation. Between the two calls, it is possible for a concurrent task to make an allocation with the same vaddr and add it to the devres list.
If this happens, there will be two entries in the devres list with the same vaddr and devres_destroy() can free the wrong entry, triggering the WARN_ON() in dmam_match.
Fix by destroying the devres entry before freeing the DMA allocation.
kokonut //net/encryption http://sponge2/b9145fe6-0f72-4325-ac2f-a84d81075b03
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-43856"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-17T10:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\ndma: fix call order in dmam_free_coherent\n\ndmam_free_coherent() frees a DMA allocation, which makes the\nfreed vaddr available for reuse, then calls devres_destroy()\nto remove and free the data structure used to track the DMA\nallocation. Between the two calls, it is possible for a\nconcurrent task to make an allocation with the same vaddr\nand add it to the devres list.\n\nIf this happens, there will be two entries in the devres list\nwith the same vaddr and devres_destroy() can free the wrong\nentry, triggering the WARN_ON() in dmam_match.\n\nFix by destroying the devres entry before freeing the DMA\nallocation.\n\n kokonut //net/encryption\n http://sponge2/b9145fe6-0f72-4325-ac2f-a84d81075b03",
"id": "GHSA-g877-jjjq-5fjc",
"modified": "2026-05-12T12:32:04Z",
"published": "2024-08-17T12:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-43856"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-265688.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1fe97f68fce1ba24bf823bfb0eb0956003473130"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/22094f5f52e7bc16c5bf9613365049383650b02e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/257193083e8f43907e99ea633820fc2b3bcd24c7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/28e8b7406d3a1f5329a03aa25a43aa28e087cb20"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2f7bbdc744f2e7051d1cb47c8e082162df1923c9"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/87b34c8c94e29fa01d744e5147697f592998d954"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f993a4baf6b622232e4c190d34c220179e5d61eb"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/fe2d246080f035e0af5793cb79067ba125e4fb63"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2024/10/msg00003.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/01/msg00001.html"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-G8C4-6CM2-MVXV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-16 00:00 – Updated: 2022-05-17 00:01A vulnerability in the NETCONF process of Cisco SD-WAN vEdge Routers could allow an authenticated, local attacker to cause an affected device to run out of memory, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. This vulnerability is due to insufficient memory management when an affected device receives large amounts of traffic. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending malicious traffic to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause the device to crash, resulting in a DoS condition.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-20717"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770",
"CWE-789"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-04-15T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the NETCONF process of Cisco SD-WAN vEdge Routers could allow an authenticated, local attacker to cause an affected device to run out of memory, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. This vulnerability is due to insufficient memory management when an affected device receives large amounts of traffic. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending malicious traffic to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause the device to crash, resulting in a DoS condition.",
"id": "GHSA-g8c4-6cm2-mvxv",
"modified": "2022-05-17T00:01:43Z",
"published": "2022-04-16T00:00:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-20717"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-sdwan-vedge-dos-jerVm4bB"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.