Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-770

Allowed

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

Abstraction: Base · Status: Incomplete

API response cwe.mitre.org

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-GGCX-XQVF-6W5P

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:47 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:47
VLAI
Details

In all Qualcomm products with Android releases from CAF using the Linux kernel, kernel memory can potentially be overwritten if an invalid master is sent from userspace.

Severity
7.8 (High)
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2017-8253"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2017-08-18T18:29:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "In all Qualcomm products with Android releases from CAF using the Linux kernel, kernel memory can potentially be overwritten if an invalid master is sent from userspace.",
  "id": "GHSA-ggcx-xqvf-6w5p",
  "modified": "2022-05-13T01:47:23Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:47:23Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-8253"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2017-07-01"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/99465"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-GGMV-J932-Q89Q

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-10 17:58 – Updated: 2025-08-14 22:21
VLAI
Summary
Chall-Manager's HTTP Gateway is vulnerable to DoS due to missing header timeout
Details

Impact

The HTTP Gateway processes headers, but with no timeout set. With a Slowloris attack, an attacker could cause Denial of Service (DoS). Exploitation does not require authentication nor authorization, so anyone can exploit it. It should nonetheless not be exploitable as it is highly recommended to bury Chall-Manager deep within the infrastructure due to its large capabilities, so no users could reach the system.

Patches

Patch has been implemented by commit 1385bd8 and shipped in v0.1.4.

Workarounds

No workaround exist.

References

N/A

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
8.7 (High)
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
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/ctfer-io/chall-manager"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.1.4"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-53634"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2025-07-10T17:58:48Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-07-10T20:15:27Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\nThe HTTP Gateway processes headers, but with no timeout set. With a Slowloris attack, an attacker could cause Denial of Service (DoS).\nExploitation does not require authentication nor authorization, so anyone can exploit it. It should nonetheless not be exploitable as it is highly recommended to bury Chall-Manager deep within the infrastructure due to its large capabilities, so no users could reach the system.\n\n### Patches\nPatch has been implemented by [commit `1385bd8`](https://github.com/ctfer-io/chall-manager/commit/1385bd869142651146cd0b123085f91cec698636) and shipped in [`v0.1.4`](https://github.com/ctfer-io/chall-manager/releases/tag/v0.1.4).\n\n### Workarounds\nNo workaround exist.\n\n### References\nN/A",
  "id": "GHSA-ggmv-j932-q89q",
  "modified": "2025-08-14T22:21:18Z",
  "published": "2025-07-10T17:58:48Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/ctfer-io/chall-manager/security/advisories/GHSA-ggmv-j932-q89q"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-53634"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/ctfer-io/chall-manager/commit/1385bd869142651146cd0b123085f91cec698636"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/ctfer-io/chall-manager"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/ctfer-io/chall-manager/releases/tag/v0.1.4"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Chall-Manager\u0027s HTTP Gateway is vulnerable to DoS due to missing header timeout"
}

GHSA-GH9Q-2XRM-X6QV

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-03 20:53 – Updated: 2025-11-04 00:32
VLAI
Summary
CGI has Denial of Service (DoS) potential in Cookie.parse
Details

There is a possibility for DoS by in the cgi gem. This vulnerability has been assigned the CVE identifier CVE-2025-27219. We recommend upgrading the cgi gem.

Details

CGI::Cookie.parse took super-linear time to parse a cookie string in some cases. Feeding a maliciously crafted cookie string into the method could lead to a Denial of Service.

Please update CGI gem to version 0.3.5.1, 0.3.7, 0.4.2 or later.

Affected versions

cgi gem versions <= 0.3.5, 0.3.6, 0.4.0 and 0.4.1.

Credits

Thanks to lio346 for discovering this issue. Also thanks to mame for fixing this vulnerability.

Severity
5.8 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:L
6.3 (Medium)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "RubyGems",
        "name": "cgi"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.3.5.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "RubyGems",
        "name": "cgi"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0.3.6"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.3.7"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ],
      "versions": [
        "0.3.6"
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "RubyGems",
        "name": "cgi"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0.4.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.4.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-27219"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400",
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2025-03-03T20:53:43Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-03-04T00:15:31Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "There is a possibility for DoS by in the cgi gem.\nThis vulnerability has been assigned the CVE identifier CVE-2025-27219. We recommend upgrading the cgi gem.\n\n## Details\n\nCGI::Cookie.parse took super-linear time to parse a cookie string in some cases. Feeding a maliciously crafted cookie string into the method could lead to a Denial of Service.\n\nPlease update CGI gem to version 0.3.5.1, 0.3.7, 0.4.2 or later.\n\n## Affected versions\n\ncgi gem versions \u003c= 0.3.5, 0.3.6, 0.4.0 and 0.4.1.\n\n## Credits\n\nThanks to lio346 for discovering this issue.\nAlso thanks to mame for fixing this vulnerability.",
  "id": "GHSA-gh9q-2xrm-x6qv",
  "modified": "2025-11-04T00:32:21Z",
  "published": "2025-03-03T20:53:43Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-27219"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/ruby/cgi/pull/52"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/ruby/cgi/pull/53"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/ruby/cgi/pull/54"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/2936778"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/ruby/cgi"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/cgi/CVE-2025-27219.yml"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/03/msg00008.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-27219"
    }
  ],
  "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:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "CGI has Denial of Service (DoS) potential in Cookie.parse"
}

GHSA-GHRH-GXWW-GQFR

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:11 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:11
VLAI
Details

An exploitable integer truncation vulnerability exists within the MPEG-4 decoding functionality of the GPAC Project on Advanced Content library v1.0.1. When processing the 'hdlr' FOURCC code, a specially crafted MPEG-4 input can cause an improper memory allocation resulting in a heap-based buffer overflow that causes memory corruption. An attacker can convince a user to open a video to trigger this vulnerability.

Severity
8.8 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-21861"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-681",
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-08-16T20:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "An exploitable integer truncation vulnerability exists within the MPEG-4 decoding functionality of the GPAC Project on Advanced Content library v1.0.1. When processing the \u0027hdlr\u0027 FOURCC code, a specially crafted MPEG-4 input can cause an improper memory allocation resulting in a heap-based buffer overflow that causes memory corruption. An attacker can convince a user to open a video to trigger this vulnerability.",
  "id": "GHSA-ghrh-gxww-gqfr",
  "modified": "2022-05-24T19:11:10Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:11:10Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-21861"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2021-1298"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2021/dsa-4966"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-GJ54-GHF2-Q4JG

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-28 12:31 – Updated: 2025-03-28 12:31
VLAI
Details

An issue has been discovered in GitLab EE/CE affecting all versions from 12.10 before 17.8.6, 17.9 before 17.9.3, and 17.10 before 17.10.1. A maliciously crafted file can cause uncontrolled CPU consumption when viewing the associated merge request.

Severity
4.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-10307"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-03-28T10:15:15Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "An issue has been discovered in GitLab EE/CE affecting all versions from 12.10 before 17.8.6, 17.9 before 17.9.3, and 17.10 before 17.10.1. A maliciously crafted file can cause uncontrolled CPU consumption when viewing the associated merge request.",
  "id": "GHSA-gj54-ghf2-q4jg",
  "modified": "2025-03-28T12:31:35Z",
  "published": "2025-03-28T12:31:35Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-10307"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/2775113"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/500497"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-GJCC-JVGW-WVWJ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-20 21:38 – Updated: 2025-01-21 18:12
VLAI
Summary
Litestar allows unbounded resource consumption (DoS vulnerability)
Details

Summary

Litestar offers multiple methods to return a parsed representation of the request body, as well as extractors that rely on those parsers to map request content to structured data types. Multiple of those parsers do not have size limits when reading the request body into memory, which allows an attacker to cause excessive memory consumption on the server by sending large requests.

Details

The Request methods to parse json, msgpack or form-data all read the entire request stream into memory via await self.body() without a prior size check or size limit. There may be other places (e.g. extractors) where this can happen.

For most formats, a configurable size limit would be sufficient to mitigate this issue. The total request size can also be limited by a proxy (e.g. nginx) in front of the actual application as a workaround. However, for applications that actually want to accept large file uploads via multipart/form-data, a simple size limit would not be practical. The multipart parser currently used by Litestar expects a single byte string as input and does not support incremental parsing via Request.stream(). Applications could bypass the Litestar parser and use a streaming parser to read from Request.stream() instead, but that would not work with extractors and other features of the framework. Switching the parser for a different implementation is currently not possible via public APIs.

PoC

Start an applications that accesses Request.json(), Request.msgpack() or Request.form() or uses an extractor that relies on those parsers internally, and send a large request with a matching content type. The actual content of the request does not matter. For example: `curl -F "foo=

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
8.2 (High)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.12.1"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "litestar"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.13.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "starlite"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "last_affected": "1.51.16"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-52581"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2024-11-20T21:38:58Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-11-20T21:15:08Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\nLitestar offers multiple methods to return a parsed representation of the request body, as well as extractors that rely on those parsers to map request content to structured data types. Multiple of those parsers do not have size limits when reading the request body into memory, which allows an attacker to cause excessive memory consumption on the server by sending large requests.\n\n### Details\nThe `Request` methods to parse json, msgpack or form-data all read the entire request stream into memory via `await self.body()` without a prior size check or size limit. There may be other places (e.g. extractors) where this can happen.\n\nFor most formats, a configurable size limit would be sufficient to mitigate this issue. The total request size can also be limited by a proxy (e.g. nginx) in front of the actual application as a workaround. However, for applications that actually want to accept large file uploads via `multipart/form-data`, a simple size limit would not be practical. The multipart parser currently used by Litestar expects a single byte string as input and does not support incremental parsing via `Request.stream()`. Applications could bypass the Litestar parser and use a [streaming parser](https://pypi.org/project/multipart/) to read from `Request.stream()` instead, but that would not work with extractors and other features of the framework. Switching the parser for a different implementation is currently not possible via public APIs.\n\n### PoC\nStart an applications that accesses `Request.json()`, `Request.msgpack()` or `Request.form()` or uses an extractor that relies on those parsers internally, and send a large request with a matching content type. The actual content of the request does not matter. For example: `curl -F \"foo=\u003c/dev/random\" http://127.0.0.1:8000/`) for `multipart/form-data`. Server memory consumption will increase very quickly until memory (and swap) are exhausted.\n\n### Impact\nThis is a denial of service (DoS) vulnerability affecting all Litestar applications that process json, msgpack or form-data submission requests.\n",
  "id": "GHSA-gjcc-jvgw-wvwj",
  "modified": "2025-01-21T18:12:08Z",
  "published": "2024-11-20T21:38:58Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar/security/advisories/GHSA-gjcc-jvgw-wvwj"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar/security/advisories/GHSA-p24m-863f-fm6q"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-52581"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar/commit/53c1473b5ff7502816a9a339ffc90731bb0c2138"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar/blob/main/litestar/_multipart.py#L97"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/litestar/PYSEC-2024-178.yaml"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Litestar allows unbounded resource consumption (DoS vulnerability) "
}

GHSA-GJF9-J6HW-Q3HJ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-29 20:06 – Updated: 2022-09-02 00:01
VLAI
Details

A flaw was found in the filelock_init in fs/locks.c function in the Linux kernel. This issue can lead to host memory exhaustion due to memcg not limiting the number of Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) file locks.

Severity
5.5 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-0480"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-08-29T15:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "A flaw was found in the filelock_init in fs/locks.c function in the Linux kernel. This issue can lead to host memory exhaustion due to memcg not limiting the number of Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) file locks.",
  "id": "GHSA-gjf9-j6hw-q3hj",
  "modified": "2022-09-02T00:01:03Z",
  "published": "2022-08-29T20:06:49Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-0480"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/issues/3373"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2022-0480"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049700"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=0f12156dff2862ac54235fc72703f18770769042"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210902215519.AWcuVc3li%25akpm%40linux-foundation.org"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210902215519.AWcuVc3li%25akpm@linux-foundation.org"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2022-0480"
    }
  ],
  "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-GM62-XV2J-4W53

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-05 18:15 – Updated: 2025-12-05 18:32
VLAI
Summary
urllib3 allows an unbounded number of links in the decompression chain
Details

Impact

urllib3 supports chained HTTP encoding algorithms for response content according to RFC 9110 (e.g., Content-Encoding: gzip, zstd).

However, the number of links in the decompression chain was unbounded allowing a malicious server to insert a virtually unlimited number of compression steps leading to high CPU usage and massive memory allocation for the decompressed data.

Affected usages

Applications and libraries using urllib3 version 2.5.0 and earlier for HTTP requests to untrusted sources unless they disable content decoding explicitly.

Remediation

Upgrade to at least urllib3 v2.6.0 in which the library limits the number of links to 5.

If upgrading is not immediately possible, use preload_content=False and ensure that resp.headers["content-encoding"] contains a safe number of encodings before reading the response content.

Severity
8.9 (High)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "urllib3"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "1.24"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.6.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-66418"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2025-12-05T18:15:19Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-12-05T16:15:51Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "## Impact\n\nurllib3 supports chained HTTP encoding algorithms for response content according to RFC 9110 (e.g., `Content-Encoding: gzip, zstd`).\n\nHowever, the number of links in the decompression chain was unbounded allowing a malicious server to insert a virtually unlimited number of compression steps leading to high CPU usage and massive memory allocation for the decompressed data.\n\n\n## Affected usages\n\nApplications and libraries using urllib3 version 2.5.0 and earlier for HTTP requests to untrusted sources unless they disable content decoding explicitly.\n\n\n## Remediation\n\nUpgrade to at least urllib3 v2.6.0 in which the library limits the number of links to 5.\n\nIf upgrading is not immediately possible, use [`preload_content=False`](https://urllib3.readthedocs.io/en/2.5.0/advanced-usage.html#streaming-and-i-o) and ensure that `resp.headers[\"content-encoding\"]` contains a safe number of encodings before reading the response content.",
  "id": "GHSA-gm62-xv2j-4w53",
  "modified": "2025-12-05T18:32:59Z",
  "published": "2025-12-05T18:15:19Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/security/advisories/GHSA-gm62-xv2j-4w53"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-66418"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/commit/24d7b67eac89f94e11003424bcf0d8f7b72222a8"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "urllib3 allows an unbounded number of links in the decompression chain"
}

GHSA-GM68-G349-GXGG

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-01-28 22:35 – Updated: 2022-01-28 22:20
VLAI
Summary
Denial of service in bingrep
Details

Bingrep v0.8.5 was discovered to contain a memory allocation failure which can cause a Denial of Service (DoS).

Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "bingrep"
      },
      "versions": [
        "0.8.5"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-39480"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-01-28T22:20:30Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-01-21T22:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Bingrep v0.8.5 was discovered to contain a memory allocation failure which can cause a Denial of Service (DoS).",
  "id": "GHSA-gm68-g349-gxgg",
  "modified": "2022-01-28T22:20:30Z",
  "published": "2022-01-28T22:35:16Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-39480"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/m4b/bingrep/issues/30"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/m4b/bingrep"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [],
  "summary": "Denial of service in bingrep"
}

GHSA-GM9M-GWC4-HWGP

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-07 18:04 – Updated: 2026-06-09 11:00
VLAI
Summary
Fedify affected by resource exhaustion caused by unbounded redirect following during remote key/document resolution
Details

Summary

@fedify/fedify follows HTTP redirects recursively in its remote document loader and authenticated document loader without enforcing a maximum redirect count or visited-URL loop detection. An attacker who controls a remote ActivityPub key or actor URL can force a server using Fedify to make repeated outbound requests from a single inbound request, leading to resource consumption and denial of service.

Details

Fedify verifies ActivityPub HTTP signatures by fetching the remote keyId during request processing. The relevant flow is handleInboxInternal() -> verifyRequest() -> fetchKeyInternal() -> document loader.

In affected versions: - the generic document loader recursively follows 3xx responses by calling load() again on the Location header - the authenticated redirect path (doubleKnock()) also recursively follows redirects - neither path enforces a redirect cap or tracks visited URLs to detect self-referential redirect loops

As a result, if an attacker-controlled keyId or actor URL responds with 302 Location: <same URL>, a single ActivityPub request can trigger tens or hundreds of outbound requests before the fetch completes or the request times out.

I confirmed the issue in @fedify/fedify 1.9.1 and 1.9.2. By contrast, Fedify's WebFinger lookup path already has a redirect cap, which suggests the missing bound in the document loader is unintended.

Failed key fetches are not durably negatively cached. After a failed lookup, the null result is only remembered in a request-local cache, so later requests can trigger the same redirect loop again for the same keyId.

PoC

Minimal direct reproduction with the package:

  1. Install @fedify/fedify@1.9.2.
  2. Save and run the following script:
import http from "node:http";
import { getDocumentLoader } from "@fedify/fedify";

const port = 45679;
let count = 0;
const redirectCount = 120;

const server = http.createServer((req, res) => {
  count += 1;

  if (count < redirectCount) {
    res.writeHead(302, {
      Location: `http://127.0.0.1:${port}/actor`,
    });
    res.end();
    return;
  }

  res.writeHead(200, { "Content-Type": "application/activity+json" });
  res.end(JSON.stringify({
    "@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
    "id": `http://127.0.0.1:${port}/actor`,
    "type": "Person"
  }));
});

await new Promise((resolve) => server.listen(port, "127.0.0.1", resolve));

try {
  const loader = getDocumentLoader({ allowPrivateAddress: true });
  await loader(`http://127.0.0.1:${port}/actor`);
  console.log({ count });
} finally {
  server.close();
}
  1. Observe output similar to:
{ count: 120 }

This shows the loader followed 119 self-redirects before the first non-redirect response.

The authenticated loader used for signed requests shows the same behavior:

import http from "node:http";
import {
  generateCryptoKeyPair,
  getAuthenticatedDocumentLoader,
} from "@fedify/fedify";

const port = 45680;
let count = 0;
const redirectCount = 120;

const server = http.createServer((req, res) => {
  count += 1;

  if (count < redirectCount) {
    res.writeHead(302, {
      Location: `http://127.0.0.1:${port}/actor`,
    });
    res.end();
    return;
  }

  res.writeHead(200, { "Content-Type": "application/activity+json" });
  res.end(JSON.stringify({
    "@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
    "id": `http://127.0.0.1:${port}/actor`,
    "type": "Person"
  }));
});

await new Promise((resolve) => server.listen(port, "127.0.0.1", resolve));

try {
  const { privateKey } = await generateCryptoKeyPair();
  const loader = getAuthenticatedDocumentLoader(
    {
      privateKey,
      keyId: new URL("https://example.com/users/index#main-key"),
    },
    { allowPrivateAddress: true },
  );

  await loader(`http://127.0.0.1:${port}/actor`);
  console.log({ count });
} finally {
  server.close();
}

Impact

This is an unauthenticated denial-of-service / request amplification issue. Any Fedify-based server that verifies remote keys or loads remote ActivityPub documents can be forced to spend CPU time, worker time, connection slots, and outbound bandwidth following attacker-controlled redirects. A single inbound request can trigger a large number of outbound requests, and the attack can be repeated across requests because failed lookups are not durably negatively cached.

Misc Notes

This issue was surfaced by a Ghost ActivityPub user reporting the issue directly to Ghost. The above report was generated upon further investigation into the issue by the Ghost team. We credit @wrathsec for the discovery.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "@fedify/fedify"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.9.6"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "@fedify/vocab-runtime"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.0.8"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "@fedify/vocab-runtime"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.1.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.1.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ],
      "versions": [
        "2.1.0"
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "@fedify/fedify"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "1.10.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.10.5"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "@fedify/fedify"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.0.8"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "@fedify/fedify"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.1.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.1.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ],
      "versions": [
        "2.1.0"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-34148"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400",
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-07T18:04:09Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-04-06T16:16:34Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\n\n`@fedify/fedify` follows HTTP redirects recursively in its remote document loader and authenticated document loader without enforcing a maximum redirect count or visited-URL loop detection. An attacker who controls a remote ActivityPub key or actor URL can force a server using Fedify to make repeated outbound requests from a single inbound request, leading to resource consumption and denial of service.\n\n### Details\n\nFedify verifies ActivityPub HTTP signatures by fetching the remote `keyId` during request processing. The relevant flow is `handleInboxInternal()` -\u003e `verifyRequest()` -\u003e `fetchKeyInternal()` -\u003e document loader.\n\nIn affected versions:\n- the generic document loader recursively follows `3xx` responses by calling `load()` again on the `Location` header\n- the authenticated redirect path (`doubleKnock()`) also recursively follows redirects\n- neither path enforces a redirect cap or tracks visited URLs to detect self-referential redirect loops\n\nAs a result, if an attacker-controlled `keyId` or actor URL responds with `302 Location: \u003csame URL\u003e`, a single ActivityPub request can trigger tens or hundreds of outbound requests before the fetch completes or the request times out.\n\nI confirmed the issue in `@fedify/fedify` 1.9.1 and 1.9.2. By contrast, Fedify\u0027s WebFinger lookup path already has a redirect cap, which suggests the missing bound in the document loader is unintended.\n\nFailed key fetches are not durably negatively cached. After a failed lookup, the null result is only remembered in a request-local cache, so later requests can trigger the same redirect loop again for the same `keyId`.\n\n### PoC\n\nMinimal direct reproduction with the package:\n\n1. Install `@fedify/fedify@1.9.2`.\n2. Save and run the following script:\n\n```js\nimport http from \"node:http\";\nimport { getDocumentLoader } from \"@fedify/fedify\";\n\nconst port = 45679;\nlet count = 0;\nconst redirectCount = 120;\n\nconst server = http.createServer((req, res) =\u003e {\n  count += 1;\n\n  if (count \u003c redirectCount) {\n    res.writeHead(302, {\n      Location: `http://127.0.0.1:${port}/actor`,\n    });\n    res.end();\n    return;\n  }\n\n  res.writeHead(200, { \"Content-Type\": \"application/activity+json\" });\n  res.end(JSON.stringify({\n    \"@context\": \"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams\",\n    \"id\": `http://127.0.0.1:${port}/actor`,\n    \"type\": \"Person\"\n  }));\n});\n\nawait new Promise((resolve) =\u003e server.listen(port, \"127.0.0.1\", resolve));\n\ntry {\n  const loader = getDocumentLoader({ allowPrivateAddress: true });\n  await loader(`http://127.0.0.1:${port}/actor`);\n  console.log({ count });\n} finally {\n  server.close();\n}\n```\n\n3. Observe output similar to:\n\n```\n{ count: 120 }\n```\n\nThis shows the loader followed 119 self-redirects before the first non-redirect response.\n\nThe authenticated loader used for signed requests shows the same behavior:\n\n```\nimport http from \"node:http\";\nimport {\n  generateCryptoKeyPair,\n  getAuthenticatedDocumentLoader,\n} from \"@fedify/fedify\";\n\nconst port = 45680;\nlet count = 0;\nconst redirectCount = 120;\n\nconst server = http.createServer((req, res) =\u003e {\n  count += 1;\n\n  if (count \u003c redirectCount) {\n    res.writeHead(302, {\n      Location: `http://127.0.0.1:${port}/actor`,\n    });\n    res.end();\n    return;\n  }\n\n  res.writeHead(200, { \"Content-Type\": \"application/activity+json\" });\n  res.end(JSON.stringify({\n    \"@context\": \"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams\",\n    \"id\": `http://127.0.0.1:${port}/actor`,\n    \"type\": \"Person\"\n  }));\n});\n\nawait new Promise((resolve) =\u003e server.listen(port, \"127.0.0.1\", resolve));\n\ntry {\n  const { privateKey } = await generateCryptoKeyPair();\n  const loader = getAuthenticatedDocumentLoader(\n    {\n      privateKey,\n      keyId: new URL(\"https://example.com/users/index#main-key\"),\n    },\n    { allowPrivateAddress: true },\n  );\n\n  await loader(`http://127.0.0.1:${port}/actor`);\n  console.log({ count });\n} finally {\n  server.close();\n}\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nThis is an unauthenticated denial-of-service / request amplification issue. Any Fedify-based server that verifies remote keys or loads remote ActivityPub documents can be forced to spend CPU time, worker time, connection slots, and outbound bandwidth following attacker-controlled redirects. A single inbound request can trigger a large number of outbound requests, and the attack can be repeated across requests because failed lookups are not durably negatively cached.\n\n### Misc Notes\n\nThis issue was surfaced by a Ghost ActivityPub user reporting the issue directly to Ghost. The above report was generated upon further investigation into the issue by the Ghost team. We credit @wrathsec for the discovery.",
  "id": "GHSA-gm9m-gwc4-hwgp",
  "modified": "2026-06-09T11:00:52Z",
  "published": "2026-04-07T18:04:09Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/fedify-dev/fedify/security/advisories/GHSA-gm9m-gwc4-hwgp"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34148"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/fedify-dev/fedify"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/fedify-dev/fedify/releases/tag/1.10.5"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/fedify-dev/fedify/releases/tag/1.9.6"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/fedify-dev/fedify/releases/tag/2.0.8"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/fedify-dev/fedify/releases/tag/2.1.1"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Fedify affected by resource exhaustion caused by unbounded redirect following during remote key/document resolution"
}
Mitigation
Requirements

Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.

Mitigation
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design

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
Implementation

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
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design
  • 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
Architecture and Design

Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.

Mitigation MIT-38.1
Architecture and Design Implementation
  • 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
Operation Architecture and Design

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.

← Back to the CWE list