CWE-770
AllowedAllocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Abstraction: Base · Status: Incomplete
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
3030 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-JFX9-CC6F-6X6Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-11 12:32 – Updated: 2026-06-11 12:32GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 17.10 before 18.10.8, 18.11 before 18.11.5, and 19.0 before 19.0.2 that under certain conditions could have allowed an authenticated user to cause denial of service due to uncontrolled resource consumption when processing a specially crafted file upload.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-1500"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-11T12:16:31Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 17.10 before 18.10.8, 18.11 before 18.11.5, and 19.0 before 19.0.2 that under certain conditions could have allowed an authenticated user to cause denial of service due to uncontrolled resource consumption when processing a specially crafted file upload.",
"id": "GHSA-jfx9-cc6f-6x6q",
"modified": "2026-06-11T12:32:45Z",
"published": "2026-06-11T12:32:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-1500"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/3517331"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2026/06/10/patch-release-gitlab-19-0-2-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/work_items/587825"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-JG62-J5H6-8MPQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-26 23:04 – Updated: 2026-06-26 23:041. Description
The Nezha dashboard exposes two endpoints that create long-lived WebSocket streams to monitored agents:
POST /api/v1/terminal→createTerminal()(terminal.go:27-67)POST /api/v1/file→createFM()(fm.go:28-67)
Both call rpc.NezhaHandlerSingleton.CreateStream(streamId, ...) which inserts a new ioStreamContext into an unbounded map[string]*ioStreamContext (s.ioStreams in io_stream.go:59-67). There is no per-user rate limit, no global semaphore, and no per-server connection cap. Each stream allocates:
- A
ioStreamContextstruct with several channels and sync primitives - Two goroutines via
StartStream()(io_stream.go:358-369) — bidirectionalio.CopyBuffer - A gRPC IOStream between the dashboard and the agent
- An agent-side PTY/shell process
Vulnerable code:
terminal.go:27-67 — createTerminal:
func createTerminal(c *gin.Context) (*model.CreateTerminalResponse, error) {
// ... validation ...
rpc.NezhaHandlerSingleton.CreateStream(streamId, getUid(c), server.ID)
// ... sends TaskTypeTerminalGRPC to agent ...
return &model.CreateTerminalResponse{...}, nil
}
fm.go:28-67 — createFM:
func createFM(c *gin.Context) (*model.CreateFMResponse, error) {
// ... validation ...
rpc.NezhaHandlerSingleton.CreateStream(streamId, getUid(c), server.ID)
// ... sends TaskTypeFM to agent ...
return &model.CreateFMResponse{...}, nil
}
io_stream.go:55-67 — CreateStreamWithPurpose (inserts into unbounded map):
func (s *NezhaHandler) CreateStreamWithPurpose(...) {
s.ioStreamMutex.Lock()
defer s.ioStreamMutex.Unlock()
s.ioStreams[streamId] = &ioStreamContext{
creatorUserID: creatorUserID,
targetServerID: targetServerID,
purpose: purpose,
userIoConnectCh: make(chan struct{}),
agentIoConnectCh: make(chan struct{}),
revokedCh: make(chan struct{}),
}
}
io_stream.go:319-372 — StartStream spawns two goroutines per stream:
func (s *NezhaHandler) StartStream(streamId string, timeout time.Duration) error {
// ...
go func() {
_, innerErr := io.CopyBuffer(userIo, agentIo, bp.buf)
errCh <- innerErr
}()
go func() {
_, innerErr := io.CopyBuffer(agentIo, userIo, bp.buf)
errCh <- innerErr
}()
return <-errCh
}
The NezhaHandler.ioStreams map is initialized as a plain make(map[string]*ioStreamContext) in nezha.go:36 — no capacity limit, no eviction policy beyond explicit CloseStream / RevokeStreamsForServer.
The HasPermission check at terminal.go:41-43 and fm.go:43-45 controls access scope but does not limit creation volume. A user with ScopeServerExec (terminal) or ScopeServerRead+Write+Delete (file manager) can open unlimited streams.
2. PoC
A conceptual attack (no Docker needed):
# As an authenticated user with a valid JWT or PAT:
for i in {1..1000}; do
curl -X POST "https://dashboard.example.com/api/v1/terminal" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $JWT" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"server_id": 1}' &
done
wait
Each request:
- Creates a new stream entry in ioStreams
- Sends a TaskTypeTerminalGRPC task to the agent
- When the WebSocket attachment occurs (GET /ws/terminal/{id}), spawns 2 goroutines for I/O relay and allocates a 1 MB buffer per goroutine
The attack targets three resource domains: 1. Dashboard memory/goroutines — each stream adds goroutines, channels, and buffers 2. Agent resources — each stream spawns a PTY/shell process on the monitored server 3. gRPC connection pool — concurrent IOStreams consume gRPC multiplexing capacity
The POST /file (createFM) endpoint provides an alternative path with the same unbounded behavior, using ScopeServerRead+Write+Delete instead of ScopeServerExec.
3. Impact
- Denial of Service against the dashboard: memory exhaustion, goroutine starvation, or gRPC stream table overflow from rapid stream creation
- Denial of Service against monitored agents: each terminal session spawns a PTY process on the agent — an attacker can crash or degrade all agents behind the dashboard
- Operational cascade: if the dashboard OOMs, all agent monitoring and alerting is lost
- PAT connection-registry bypass: rapid create-connect-disconnect cycles may evade cleanup tracking
The attack requires only authenticated access with standard scopes — no special privileges. Any team member with terminal access to a server can DoS the entire infrastructure.
4. Remediation
Implement layered rate limiting and concurrency control:
-
Per-user stream cap in
CreateStream— reject if the user already has N active streams (e.g., 10 per user):go func (s *NezhaHandler) CreateStreamWithPurpose(...) { s.ioStreamMutex.Lock() defer s.ioStreamMutex.Unlock() count := 0 for _, ctx := range s.ioStreams { if ctx.creatorUserID == creatorUserID { count++ } } if count >= maxStreamsPerUser { return error } // ... existing code ... } -
Per-server semaphore — limit concurrent streams to any single server (e.g., 20 per server)
-
Rate limiter on
createTerminalandcreateFM— mirror the existing MCP rate limiter (mcp_ratelimit.go) for legacy WebSocket endpoints -
Add a configurable
MaxStreamsPerUser/MaxStreamsPerServersetting so operators can tune limits without code changes
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/nezhahq/nezha"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.2.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-53522"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-26T23:04:18Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-12T22:16:52Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## 1. Description\n\nThe Nezha dashboard exposes two endpoints that create long-lived WebSocket streams to monitored agents:\n\n- `POST /api/v1/terminal` \u2192 `createTerminal()` (terminal.go:27-67)\n- `POST /api/v1/file` \u2192 `createFM()` (fm.go:28-67)\n\nBoth call `rpc.NezhaHandlerSingleton.CreateStream(streamId, ...)` which inserts a new `ioStreamContext` into an **unbounded** `map[string]*ioStreamContext` (`s.ioStreams` in `io_stream.go:59-67`). There is **no per-user rate limit, no global semaphore, and no per-server connection cap**. Each stream allocates:\n\n1. A `ioStreamContext` struct with several channels and sync primitives\n2. Two goroutines via `StartStream()` (io_stream.go:358-369) \u2014 bidirectional `io.CopyBuffer`\n3. A gRPC IOStream between the dashboard and the agent\n4. An agent-side PTY/shell process\n\n**Vulnerable code:**\n\n`terminal.go:27-67` \u2014 `createTerminal`:\n```go\nfunc createTerminal(c *gin.Context) (*model.CreateTerminalResponse, error) {\n // ... validation ...\n rpc.NezhaHandlerSingleton.CreateStream(streamId, getUid(c), server.ID)\n // ... sends TaskTypeTerminalGRPC to agent ...\n return \u0026model.CreateTerminalResponse{...}, nil\n}\n```\n\n`fm.go:28-67` \u2014 `createFM`:\n```go\nfunc createFM(c *gin.Context) (*model.CreateFMResponse, error) {\n // ... validation ...\n rpc.NezhaHandlerSingleton.CreateStream(streamId, getUid(c), server.ID)\n // ... sends TaskTypeFM to agent ...\n return \u0026model.CreateFMResponse{...}, nil\n}\n```\n\n`io_stream.go:55-67` \u2014 `CreateStreamWithPurpose` (inserts into unbounded map):\n```go\nfunc (s *NezhaHandler) CreateStreamWithPurpose(...) {\n s.ioStreamMutex.Lock()\n defer s.ioStreamMutex.Unlock()\n s.ioStreams[streamId] = \u0026ioStreamContext{\n creatorUserID: creatorUserID,\n targetServerID: targetServerID,\n purpose: purpose,\n userIoConnectCh: make(chan struct{}),\n agentIoConnectCh: make(chan struct{}),\n revokedCh: make(chan struct{}),\n }\n}\n```\n\n`io_stream.go:319-372` \u2014 `StartStream` spawns two goroutines per stream:\n```go\nfunc (s *NezhaHandler) StartStream(streamId string, timeout time.Duration) error {\n // ...\n go func() {\n _, innerErr := io.CopyBuffer(userIo, agentIo, bp.buf)\n errCh \u003c- innerErr\n }()\n go func() {\n _, innerErr := io.CopyBuffer(agentIo, userIo, bp.buf)\n errCh \u003c- innerErr\n }()\n return \u003c-errCh\n}\n```\n\nThe `NezhaHandler.ioStreams` map is initialized as a plain `make(map[string]*ioStreamContext)` in `nezha.go:36` \u2014 no capacity limit, no eviction policy beyond explicit `CloseStream` / `RevokeStreamsForServer`.\n\nThe `HasPermission` check at terminal.go:41-43 and fm.go:43-45 controls **access scope** but does **not** limit creation volume. A user with `ScopeServerExec` (terminal) or `ScopeServerRead+Write+Delete` (file manager) can open unlimited streams.\n\n## 2. PoC\n\nA conceptual attack (no Docker needed):\n\n```\n# As an authenticated user with a valid JWT or PAT:\nfor i in {1..1000}; do\n curl -X POST \"https://dashboard.example.com/api/v1/terminal\" \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer $JWT\" \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \u0027{\"server_id\": 1}\u0027 \u0026\ndone\nwait\n```\n\nEach request:\n- Creates a new stream entry in `ioStreams`\n- Sends a `TaskTypeTerminalGRPC` task to the agent\n- When the WebSocket attachment occurs (`GET /ws/terminal/{id}`), spawns 2 goroutines for I/O relay and allocates a 1 MB buffer per goroutine\n\nThe attack targets three resource domains:\n1. **Dashboard memory/goroutines** \u2014 each stream adds goroutines, channels, and buffers\n2. **Agent resources** \u2014 each stream spawns a PTY/shell process on the monitored server\n3. **gRPC connection pool** \u2014 concurrent IOStreams consume gRPC multiplexing capacity\n\nThe `POST /file (createFM)` endpoint provides an alternative path with the same unbounded behavior, using `ScopeServerRead+Write+Delete` instead of `ScopeServerExec`.\n\n## 3. Impact\n\n- **Denial of Service against the dashboard**: memory exhaustion, goroutine starvation, or gRPC stream table overflow from rapid stream creation\n- **Denial of Service against monitored agents**: each terminal session spawns a PTY process on the agent \u2014 an attacker can crash or degrade all agents behind the dashboard\n- **Operational cascade**: if the dashboard OOMs, all agent monitoring and alerting is lost\n- **PAT connection-registry bypass**: rapid create-connect-disconnect cycles may evade cleanup tracking\n\nThe attack requires only authenticated access with standard scopes \u2014 no special privileges. Any team member with terminal access to a server can DoS the entire infrastructure.\n\n## 4. Remediation\n\nImplement layered rate limiting and concurrency control:\n\n1. **Per-user stream cap** in `CreateStream` \u2014 reject if the user already has N active streams (e.g., 10 per user):\n ```go\n func (s *NezhaHandler) CreateStreamWithPurpose(...) {\n s.ioStreamMutex.Lock()\n defer s.ioStreamMutex.Unlock()\n count := 0\n for _, ctx := range s.ioStreams {\n if ctx.creatorUserID == creatorUserID { count++ }\n }\n if count \u003e= maxStreamsPerUser { return error }\n // ... existing code ...\n }\n ```\n\n2. **Per-server semaphore** \u2014 limit concurrent streams to any single server (e.g., 20 per server)\n\n3. **Rate limiter on `createTerminal` and `createFM`** \u2014 mirror the existing MCP rate limiter (`mcp_ratelimit.go`) for legacy WebSocket endpoints\n\n4. **Add a configurable `MaxStreamsPerUser` / `MaxStreamsPerServer` setting** so operators can tune limits without code changes",
"id": "GHSA-jg62-j5h6-8mpq",
"modified": "2026-06-26T23:04:18Z",
"published": "2026-06-26T23:04:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nezhahq/nezha/security/advisories/GHSA-jg62-j5h6-8mpq"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-53522"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/nezhahq/nezha"
}
],
"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": "Nezha Monitoring: Unbounded WebSocket Streams \u2014 Resource Exhaustion DoS"
}
GHSA-JGGW-P92X-6H2M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-14 00:30 – Updated: 2025-02-14 18:30Mercedes Benz head-unit NTG 6 contains functions to import or export profile settings over USB. During parsing you can trigger that the service will be crashed.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-34397"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-13T22:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Mercedes Benz head-unit NTG 6 contains functions to import or export profile settings over USB. During parsing you can trigger that the service will be crashed.",
"id": "GHSA-jggw-p92x-6h2m",
"modified": "2025-02-14T18:30:50Z",
"published": "2025-02-14T00:30:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-34397"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://securelist.com/mercedes-benz-head-unit-security-research/115218"
}
],
"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-JGMQ-7WWP-JMFP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-31 00:30 – Updated: 2026-01-31 00:30Code Blocks 20.03 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows attackers to crash the application by manipulating input in the FSymbols search field. Attackers can paste a large payload of 5000 repeated characters into the search field to trigger an application crash.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-37038"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-30T23:16:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Code Blocks 20.03 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows attackers to crash the application by manipulating input in the FSymbols search field. Attackers can paste a large payload of 5000 repeated characters into the search field to trigger an application crash.",
"id": "GHSA-jgmq-7wwp-jmfp",
"modified": "2026-01-31T00:30:29Z",
"published": "2026-01-31T00:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-37038"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sourceforge.net/projects/codeblocks"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/48617"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/code-blocks-denial-of-service"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.codeblocks.org"
}
],
"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:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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"
}
]
}
GHSA-JGX4-7V3V-VWFM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-21 12:30 – Updated: 2025-02-21 21:01An allocation of resources without limits or throttling in Elasticsearch can lead to an OutOfMemoryError exception resulting in a crash via a specially crafted query using an SQL function.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "7.17.21"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "8.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "8.13.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-43709"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-01-21T20:17:05Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-21T11:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An allocation of resources without limits or throttling in Elasticsearch can lead to an OutOfMemoryError exception resulting in a crash via a specially crafted query using an SQL function.",
"id": "GHSA-jgx4-7v3v-vwfm",
"modified": "2025-02-21T21:01:32Z",
"published": "2025-01-21T12:30:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-43709"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://discuss.elastic.co/t/elasticsearch-7-17-21-and-8-13-3-security-update-esa-2024-25/373442"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20250221-0007"
}
],
"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": "Elasticsearch allocation of resources without limits or throttling leads to crash"
}
GHSA-JH6X-7XFG-9CQ2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-20 22:46 – Updated: 2025-10-28 19:47Impact
First noticed in Opencast 13 and 14, Opencast's Elasticsearch integration may generate syntactically invalid Elasticsearch queries in relation to previously acceptable search queries. From Opencast version 11.4 and newer, Elasticsearch queries are retried a configurable number of times in the case of error to handle temporary losses of connection to Elasticsearch. These invalid queries would fail, causing the retry mechanism to begin requerying with the same syntactically invalid query immediately, in an infinite loop. This causes a massive increase in log size which can in some cases cause a denial of service due to disk exhaustion.
Patches
Opencast 13.10 and Opencast 14.3 contain patches (https://github.com/opencast/opencast/pull/5150, and https://github.com/opencast/opencast/pull/5033) which address the base issue, with Opencast 16.7 containing changes which harmonize the search behaviour between the admin UI and external API. Users are strongly recommended to upgrade as soon as possible if running versions prior to 13.10 or 14.3. While the relevant endpoints require (by default) ROLE_ADMIN or ROLE_API_SERIES_VIEW, the problem queries are otherwise innocuous. This issue could be easily triggered by normal administrative work on an affected Opencast system. If you are running a version newer than 13.10 and 14.3 and seeing different results when searching in your admin UI vs your external API or LMS, upgrading to 16.7 should resolve the issue.
Workarounds
None identified.
References
Pull Requests - Preventing the infinite loop issue: https://github.com/opencast/opencast/pull/5150 - Sanitizing user input: https://github.com/opencast/opencast/pull/5033
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:
Open an issue in our issue tracker Email us at security@opencast.org
Credit
Credit to Adilagha Aliyev of Graz University of Technology, Educational Technologies, adilagha.aliyev@gmail.com
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.opencastproject:opencast-elasticsearch-impl"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "11.4"
},
{
"fixed": "13.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.opencastproject:opencast-elasticsearch-impl"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "14.0"
},
{
"fixed": "14.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 16.6"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.opencastproject:opencast-elasticsearch-impl"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "15.0"
},
{
"fixed": "16.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-52797"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-11-20T22:46:53Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-21T11:15:35Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nFirst noticed in Opencast 13 and 14, Opencast\u0027s Elasticsearch integration may generate syntactically invalid Elasticsearch queries in relation to previously acceptable search queries. From Opencast version 11.4 and newer, Elasticsearch queries are retried a configurable number of times in the case of error to handle temporary losses of connection to Elasticsearch. These invalid queries would fail, causing the retry mechanism to begin requerying with the same syntactically invalid query immediately, in an infinite loop. This causes a massive increase in log size which can in some cases cause a denial of service due to disk exhaustion.\n\n### Patches\nOpencast 13.10 and Opencast 14.3 contain patches (https://github.com/opencast/opencast/pull/5150, and https://github.com/opencast/opencast/pull/5033) which address the base issue, with Opencast 16.7 containing changes which harmonize the search behaviour between the admin UI and external API. Users are strongly recommended to upgrade as soon as possible if running versions prior to 13.10 or 14.3. While the relevant endpoints require (by default) `ROLE_ADMIN` or `ROLE_API_SERIES_VIEW`, the problem queries are otherwise innocuous. This issue could be easily triggered by normal administrative work on an affected Opencast system. If you are running a version newer than 13.10 and 14.3 *and* seeing different results when searching in your admin UI vs your external API or LMS, upgrading to 16.7 should resolve the issue.\n\n### Workarounds\nNone identified.\n\n### References\nPull Requests\n- Preventing the infinite loop issue: https://github.com/opencast/opencast/pull/5150\n- Sanitizing user input: https://github.com/opencast/opencast/pull/5033\n\n### If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\nOpen an issue in [our issue tracker](https://github.com/opencast/opencast/issues)\nEmail us at [security@opencast.org](mailto:security@opencast.org)\n\n### Credit\nCredit to Adilagha Aliyev of Graz University of Technology, Educational Technologies, adilagha.aliyev@gmail.com",
"id": "GHSA-jh6x-7xfg-9cq2",
"modified": "2025-10-28T19:47:39Z",
"published": "2024-11-20T22:46:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/opencast/opencast/security/advisories/GHSA-jh6x-7xfg-9cq2"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-52797"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/opencast/opencast/pull/5033"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/opencast/opencast/pull/5150"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/opencast/opencast/commit/3d5ebd163674eb18e070f52b64a18f92188f98c3"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/opencast/opencast"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/opencast/opencast/blob/7ad05f72814f057130122904015d471cfe5f4c58/docs/guides/admin/docs/changelog/older-versions/opencast-16.md?plain=1#L74"
}
],
"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": "Searching Opencast may cause a denial of service"
}
GHSA-JH87-MJH3-HM4W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-17 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-18 00:00tifig v0.2.2 was discovered to contain a resource allocation issue via operator new(unsigned long) at asan_new_delete.cpp.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-36155"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-16T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "tifig v0.2.2 was discovered to contain a resource allocation issue via operator new(unsigned long) at asan_new_delete.cpp.",
"id": "GHSA-jh87-mjh3-hm4w",
"modified": "2022-08-18T00:00:17Z",
"published": "2022-08-17T00:00:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-36155"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/monostream/tifig/issues/73"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-JH93-VVQF-MFQC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-21 21:30 – Updated: 2025-01-21 21:30Vulnerability in the PeopleSoft Enterprise PeopleTools product of Oracle PeopleSoft (component: OpenSearch). Supported versions that are affected are 8.60 and 8.61. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise PeopleSoft Enterprise PeopleTools. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of PeopleSoft Enterprise PeopleTools. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 7.5 (Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-21545"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-21T21:15:20Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the PeopleSoft Enterprise PeopleTools product of Oracle PeopleSoft (component: OpenSearch). Supported versions that are affected are 8.60 and 8.61. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise PeopleSoft Enterprise PeopleTools. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of PeopleSoft Enterprise PeopleTools. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 7.5 (Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).",
"id": "GHSA-jh93-vvqf-mfqc",
"modified": "2025-01-21T21:30:56Z",
"published": "2025-01-21T21:30:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-21545"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujan2025.html"
}
],
"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-JHF3-XXHW-2WPP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-30 17:17 – Updated: 2026-03-31 18:50Impact
A vulnerability has been identified in which a maliciously crafted .idx file can cause asymmetric memory consumption, potentially exhausting available memory and resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS) condition.
Exploitation requires write access to the local repository's .git directory, it order to create or alter existing .idx files.
Patches
Users should upgrade to v5.17.1, or the latest v6 pseudo-version, in order to mitigate this vulnerability.
Credit
The go-git maintainers thank @kq5y for finding and reporting this issue privately to the go-git project.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 5.17.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/go-git/go-git/v5"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "5.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.17.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34165"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-191",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-30T17:17:54Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-31T15:16:17Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nA vulnerability has been identified in which a maliciously crafted `.idx` file can cause asymmetric memory consumption, potentially exhausting available memory and resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS) condition.\n\nExploitation requires write access to the local repository\u0027s `.git` directory, it order to create or alter existing `.idx` files. \n\n### Patches\n\nUsers should upgrade to `v5.17.1`, or the latest `v6` [pseudo-version](https://go.dev/ref/mod#pseudo-versions), in order to mitigate this vulnerability.\n\n### Credit\n\nThe go-git maintainers thank @kq5y for finding and reporting this issue privately to the `go-git` project.",
"id": "GHSA-jhf3-xxhw-2wpp",
"modified": "2026-03-31T18:50:40Z",
"published": "2026-03-30T17:17:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-git/go-git/security/advisories/GHSA-jhf3-xxhw-2wpp"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34165"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/go-git/go-git"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/go-git/go-git/releases/tag/v5.17.1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "go-git: Maliciously crafted idx file can cause asymmetric memory consumption"
}
GHSA-JHQ4-533P-8P4C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-12 00:31 – Updated: 2026-06-30 03:35This issue was addressed through improved state management. This issue is fixed in macOS Tahoe 26.3, iOS 18.7.5 and iPadOS 18.7.5, visionOS 26.3, iOS 26.3 and iPadOS 26.3, Safari 26.3. Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-20608"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-120",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-11T23:16:04Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "This issue was addressed through improved state management. This issue is fixed in macOS Tahoe 26.3, iOS 18.7.5 and iPadOS 18.7.5, visionOS 26.3, iOS 26.3 and iPadOS 26.3, Safari 26.3. Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash.",
"id": "GHSA-jhq4-533p-8p4c",
"modified": "2026-06-30T03:35:34Z",
"published": "2026-02-12T00:31:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-20608"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/126354"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/126353"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/126348"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/126347"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/126346"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-20608.json"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2448789"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-20608"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:9692"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:22136"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:19535"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:19206"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:16695"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:16056"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:14659"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:13845"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:11814"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:11329"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:10702"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
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.