Common Weakness Enumeration
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.
3510 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
CVE-2026-49089 (GCVE-0-2026-49089)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-08-13 19:08 – Updated: 2026-08-13 20:35
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in Kibana Leading to Denial of Service
Summary
Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A query expression accepted by a connector reporting operation was processed without any limit on its size, and an oversized expression caused the Kibana process to spend an unbounded amount of time evaluating it. An authenticated user with read-only privileges was able to send a single request that left Kibana unable to serve any user until the process was restarted.
Severity
6.5 (Medium)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-08-13 20:22 UTC
CWE
- CWE-770 - Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Assigner
References
1 reference
Impacted products
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-49089",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-08-13T20:22:44.283077Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-13T20:35:37.461Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "Kibana",
"vendor": "Elastic",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "8.19.19",
"status": "affected",
"version": "8.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "9.4.4",
"status": "affected",
"version": "9.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eAllocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A query expression accepted by a connector reporting operation was processed without any limit on its size, and an oversized expression caused the Kibana process to spend an unbounded amount of time evaluating it. An authenticated user with read-only privileges was able to send a single request that left Kibana unable to serve any user until the process was restarted.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A query expression accepted by a connector reporting operation was processed without any limit on its size, and an oversized expression caused the Kibana process to spend an unbounded amount of time evaluating it. An authenticated user with read-only privileges was able to send a single request that left Kibana unable to serve any user until the process was restarted."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-130",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-130 Excessive Allocation"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 6.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-13T19:08:07.007Z",
"orgId": "271b6943-45a9-4f3a-ab4e-976f3fa05b5a",
"shortName": "elastic"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://discuss.elastic.co/t/kibana-8-19-20-9-4-5-security-update-esa-2026-137/389511"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "Elastic"
},
"title": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in Kibana Leading to Denial of Service",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Elastic CVE Publisher 1.0.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "271b6943-45a9-4f3a-ab4e-976f3fa05b5a",
"assignerShortName": "elastic",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-49089",
"datePublished": "2026-08-13T19:08:07.007Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-05-27T11:31:33.582Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-13T20:35:37.461Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-49087 (GCVE-0-2026-49087)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-07-01 16:35 – Updated: 2026-07-01 17:25
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in Kibana Leading to Denial of Service
Summary
Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) in Kibana can lead to a denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated user can submit a specially crafted bulk deletion request that causes excessive resource consumption, which may render Kibana unavailable.
Severity
6.5 (Medium)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-07-01 17:19 UTC
CWE
- CWE-770 - Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Assigner
References
1 reference
Impacted products
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-49087",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-07-01T17:19:30.350365Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-07-01T17:25:07.782Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "Kibana",
"vendor": "Elastic",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "9.3.3",
"status": "affected",
"version": "9.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "8.19.14",
"status": "affected",
"version": "8.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eAllocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) in Kibana can lead to a denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated user can submit a specially crafted bulk deletion request that causes excessive resource consumption, which may render Kibana unavailable.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) in Kibana can lead to a denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated user can submit a specially crafted bulk deletion request that causes excessive resource consumption, which may render Kibana unavailable."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-130",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-130 Excessive Allocation"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 6.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-07-01T16:35:19.567Z",
"orgId": "271b6943-45a9-4f3a-ab4e-976f3fa05b5a",
"shortName": "elastic"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://discuss.elastic.co/t/kibana-8-19-15-9-3-4-security-update-esa-2026-49"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "Elastic"
},
"title": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in Kibana Leading to Denial of Service",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Elastic CVE Publisher 0.0.1"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "271b6943-45a9-4f3a-ab4e-976f3fa05b5a",
"assignerShortName": "elastic",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-49087",
"datePublished": "2026-07-01T16:35:19.567Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-05-27T11:31:33.582Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-07-01T17:25:07.782Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-48990 (GCVE-0-2026-48990)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-06-17 21:08 – Updated: 2026-06-18 12:51
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
joserfc: b64=false RFC7797 JWS payloads bypass JWSRegistry payload-size limits during deserialization
Summary
joserfc is a Python library that provides an implementation of several JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) standards. In versions 1.3.4 through 1.6.5, joserfc accepts oversized RFC7797 b64=false JWS payloads without applying JWSRegistry.max_payload_length, which can lead to resource exhaustion. The normal JWS compact and flattened JSON paths reject payloads above the configured payload-size limit with ExceededSizeError. The RFC7797 unencoded payload paths do not make the same check. A valid b64=false compact or flattened JSON JWS can therefore deserialize successfully with a payload larger than JWSRegistry.max_payload_length. Applications that accept lower-trust JWS values and rely on joserfc to reject oversized token content during verification have a moderate availability risk. This issue has been fixed in version 1.6.7.
Severity
5.3 (Medium)
SSVC
Exploitation: poc
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-06-18 12:51 UTC
CWE
Assigner
References
2 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/security/advis… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
| https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/releases/tag/1.6.7 | x_refsource_MISC |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-48990",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-06-18T12:51:44.745917Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-18T12:51:59.900Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"exploit"
],
"url": "https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/security/advisories/GHSA-wphv-vfrh-23q5"
}
],
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "joserfc",
"vendor": "authlib",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 1.6.7"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "joserfc is a Python library that provides an implementation of several JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) standards. In versions 1.3.4 through 1.6.5, joserfc accepts oversized RFC7797 b64=false JWS payloads without applying JWSRegistry.max_payload_length, which can lead to resource exhaustion. The normal JWS compact and flattened JSON paths reject payloads above the configured payload-size limit with ExceededSizeError. The RFC7797 unencoded payload paths do not make the same check. A valid b64=false compact or flattened JSON JWS can therefore deserialize successfully with a payload larger than JWSRegistry.max_payload_length. Applications that accept lower-trust JWS values and rely on joserfc to reject oversized token content during verification have a moderate availability risk. This issue has been fixed in version 1.6.7."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "LOW",
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"version": "3.1"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-400",
"description": "CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-17T21:08:10.534Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/security/advisories/GHSA-wphv-vfrh-23q5",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/security/advisories/GHSA-wphv-vfrh-23q5"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/releases/tag/1.6.7",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/releases/tag/1.6.7"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-wphv-vfrh-23q5",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "joserfc: b64=false RFC7797 JWS payloads bypass JWSRegistry payload-size limits during deserialization"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-48990",
"datePublished": "2026-06-17T21:08:10.534Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-05-26T23:26:07.975Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-18T12:51:59.900Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-48862 (GCVE-0-2026-48862)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-06-02 14:15 – Updated: 2026-06-02 19:14
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Unbounded conn.streams growth in Mint HTTP/2 client via unenforced PUSH_PROMISE concurrency
Summary
Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in elixir-mint Mint allows attacker-controlled HTTP/2 servers to exhaust memory in a Mint client via PUSH_PROMISE flooding.
In lib/mint/http2.ex, Mint.HTTP2.decode_push_promise_headers_and_add_response/5 inserts a :reserved_remote entry into conn.streams for every promised stream ID. The neighbouring Mint.HTTP2.assert_valid_promised_stream_id/2 only verifies that the promised ID is even and not already present; client_settings.max_concurrent_streams is not consulted at promise time. The concurrency cap is only checked when the response HEADERS for the promised stream arrive, so a server that emits PUSH_PROMISE frames and withholds the matching HEADERS never trips that check.
HTTP/2 server push is accepted by default (client_settings.enable_push defaults to true). A single long-lived HTTP/2 connection to a hostile server lets that server pin one conn.streams entry per PUSH_PROMISE frame it sends, with no upper bound, until the client process runs out of memory.
This issue affects mint: from 0.2.0 before 1.9.0.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: poc
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-06-02 18:11 UTC
CWE
- CWE-770 - Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Assigner
References
4 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/elixir-mint/mint/security/advi… | vendor-advisoryrelated |
| https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-48862.html | related |
| https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-48862 | related |
| https://github.com/elixir-mint/mint/commit/70b97b… | patch |
Impacted products
2 products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| elixir-mint | mint |
Affected:
0.2.0 , < 1.9.0
(semver)
cpe:2.3:a:elixir-mint:mint:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
|
| elixir-mint | mint |
Affected:
65c6394d05a1b8aa4a7461708c3aa173e8d7a5cf , < 70b97b6a5209fb288b0e04d8e657dda26c59de67
(git)
cpe:2.3:a:elixir-mint:mint:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-48862",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-06-02T18:11:00.524487Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-02T18:11:05.599Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"exploit"
],
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-mint/mint/security/advisories/GHSA-g586-ccqf-7x4r"
}
],
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://repo.hex.pm",
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:elixir-mint:mint:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"\u0027Elixir.Mint.HTTP2\u0027"
],
"packageName": "mint",
"packageURL": "pkg:hex/mint",
"product": "mint",
"programFiles": [
"lib/mint/http2.ex"
],
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.Mint.HTTP2\u0027:handle_push_promise/3"
},
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.Mint.HTTP2\u0027:decode_push_promise_headers_and_add_response/5"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/elixir-mint/mint",
"vendor": "elixir-mint",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "1.9.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0.2.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
},
{
"collectionURL": "https://github.com",
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:elixir-mint:mint:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"\u0027Elixir.Mint.HTTP2\u0027"
],
"packageName": "elixir-mint/mint",
"packageURL": "pkg:github/elixir-mint/mint",
"product": "mint",
"programFiles": [
"lib/mint/http2.ex"
],
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.Mint.HTTP2\u0027:handle_push_promise/3"
},
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.Mint.HTTP2\u0027:decode_push_promise_headers_and_add_response/5"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/elixir-mint/mint.git",
"vendor": "elixir-mint",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "70b97b6a5209fb288b0e04d8e657dda26c59de67",
"status": "affected",
"version": "65c6394d05a1b8aa4a7461708c3aa173e8d7a5cf",
"versionType": "git"
}
]
}
],
"cpeApplicability": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:elixir-mint:mint:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "1.9.0",
"versionStartIncluding": "0.2.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
],
"operator": "AND"
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Peter Ullrich"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Eric Meadows-J\u00f6nsson"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "analyst",
"value": "Jonatan M\u00e4nnchen / EEF"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in elixir-mint Mint allows attacker-controlled HTTP/2 servers to exhaust memory in a Mint client via PUSH_PROMISE flooding.\u003cp\u003eIn \u003ctt\u003elib/mint/http2.ex\u003c/tt\u003e, \u003ctt\u003e\u0027Elixir.Mint.HTTP2\u0027:decode_push_promise_headers_and_add_response/5\u003c/tt\u003e inserts a \u003ctt\u003e:reserved_remote\u003c/tt\u003e entry into \u003ctt\u003econn.streams\u003c/tt\u003e for every promised stream ID. The neighbouring \u003ctt\u003e\u0027Elixir.Mint.HTTP2\u0027:assert_valid_promised_stream_id/2\u003c/tt\u003e only verifies that the promised ID is even and not already present; \u003ctt\u003eclient_settings.max_concurrent_streams\u003c/tt\u003e is not consulted at promise time. The concurrency cap is only checked when the response \u003ctt\u003eHEADERS\u003c/tt\u003e for the promised stream arrive, so a server that emits \u003ctt\u003ePUSH_PROMISE\u003c/tt\u003e frames and withholds the matching \u003ctt\u003eHEADERS\u003c/tt\u003e never trips that check.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHTTP/2 server push is accepted by default (\u003ctt\u003eclient_settings.enable_push\u003c/tt\u003e defaults to \u003ctt\u003etrue\u003c/tt\u003e). A single long-lived HTTP/2 connection to a hostile server lets that server pin one \u003ctt\u003econn.streams\u003c/tt\u003e entry per \u003ctt\u003ePUSH_PROMISE\u003c/tt\u003e frame it sends, with no upper bound, until the client process runs out of memory.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis issue affects mint: from 0.2.0 before 1.9.0.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in elixir-mint Mint allows attacker-controlled HTTP/2 servers to exhaust memory in a Mint client via PUSH_PROMISE flooding.\n\nIn lib/mint/http2.ex, Mint.HTTP2.decode_push_promise_headers_and_add_response/5 inserts a :reserved_remote entry into conn.streams for every promised stream ID. The neighbouring Mint.HTTP2.assert_valid_promised_stream_id/2 only verifies that the promised ID is even and not already present; client_settings.max_concurrent_streams is not consulted at promise time. The concurrency cap is only checked when the response HEADERS for the promised stream arrive, so a server that emits PUSH_PROMISE frames and withholds the matching HEADERS never trips that check.\n\nHTTP/2 server push is accepted by default (client_settings.enable_push defaults to true). A single long-lived HTTP/2 connection to a hostile server lets that server pin one conn.streams entry per PUSH_PROMISE frame it sends, with no upper bound, until the client process runs out of memory.\n\nThis issue affects mint: from 0.2.0 before 1.9.0."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-130",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-130 Excessive Allocation"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 8.2,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-02T19:14:09.683Z",
"orgId": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"shortName": "EEF"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory",
"related"
],
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-mint/mint/security/advisories/GHSA-g586-ccqf-7x4r"
},
{
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-48862.html"
},
{
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-48862"
},
{
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-mint/mint/commit/70b97b6a5209fb288b0e04d8e657dda26c59de67"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "Unbounded conn.streams growth in Mint HTTP/2 client via unenforced PUSH_PROMISE concurrency",
"workarounds": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eDisable HTTP/2 server push on connections to untrusted servers by passing \u003ctt\u003eclient_settings: [enable_push: false]\u003c/tt\u003e to \u003ctt\u003e\u0027Elixir.Mint.HTTP\u0027:connect/4\u003c/tt\u003e. This makes Mint reject any inbound \u003ctt\u003ePUSH_PROMISE\u003c/tt\u003e frame with a \u003ctt\u003ePROTOCOL_ERROR\u003c/tt\u003e before the vulnerable code path is reached.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "Disable HTTP/2 server push on connections to untrusted servers by passing client_settings: [enable_push: false] to Mint.HTTP.connect/4. This makes Mint reject any inbound PUSH_PROMISE frame with a PROTOCOL_ERROR before the vulnerable code path is reached."
}
],
"x_generator": {
"engine": "cvelib 1.8.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"assignerShortName": "EEF",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-48862",
"datePublished": "2026-06-02T14:15:10.591Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-05-25T20:44:10.697Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-02T19:14:09.683Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-48854 (GCVE-0-2026-48854)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-06-15 21:55 – Updated: 2026-06-17 04:46
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Unbounded request body accumulation causes memory exhaustion in elixir-grpc/grpc
Summary
Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows unauthenticated attackers to exhaust the BEAM's memory and crash the server by streaming a large or slow-trickle unary request body.
'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler':read_full_body/3 (lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex) accumulates every received chunk into a single growing binary with no size cap. Additionally, when the client omits the grpc-timeout header, the per-chunk read timeout resolves to :infinity, allowing a slow-trickle client to keep the connection alive indefinitely while memory grows. A single connection is sufficient to exhaust server memory and crash the node.
This issue affects grpc from 0.3.1 before 1.0.0.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: poc
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-06-16 14:47 UTC
CWE
- CWE-770 - Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Assigner
References
4 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc/security/advi… | vendor-advisoryrelated |
| https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-48854.html | related |
| https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-48854 | related |
| https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc/commit/49e18c… | patch |
Impacted products
2 products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| elixir-grpc | grpc |
Affected:
0.3.1 , < 1.0.0
(semver)
cpe:2.3:a:elixir-grpc:grpc:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
|
| elixir-grpc | grpc |
Affected:
d1abe70a6cad6dac4a3f8235d883d7c896989560 , < 49e18c3ec6bb9afe2f712caad3dbab5c56a68a00
(git)
cpe:2.3:a:elixir-grpc:grpc:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-48854",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-06-16T14:47:02.881535Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-16T14:47:28.479Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"exploit"
],
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc/security/advisories/GHSA-q8gf-9rvj-gmgj"
}
],
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://repo.hex.pm",
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:elixir-grpc:grpc:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"\u0027Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler\u0027"
],
"packageName": "grpc",
"packageURL": "pkg:hex/grpc",
"product": "grpc",
"programFiles": [
"lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex"
],
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler\u0027:read_full_body/3"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc",
"vendor": "elixir-grpc",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "1.0.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0.3.1",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
},
{
"collectionURL": "https://github.com",
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:elixir-grpc:grpc:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"\u0027Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler\u0027"
],
"packageName": "elixir-grpc/grpc",
"packageURL": "pkg:github/elixir-grpc/grpc",
"product": "grpc",
"programFiles": [
"lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex"
],
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler\u0027:read_full_body/3"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc",
"vendor": "elixir-grpc",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "49e18c3ec6bb9afe2f712caad3dbab5c56a68a00",
"status": "affected",
"version": "d1abe70a6cad6dac4a3f8235d883d7c896989560",
"versionType": "git"
}
]
}
],
"cpeApplicability": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:elixir-grpc:grpc:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "1.0.0",
"versionStartIncluding": "0.3.1",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Peter Ullrich"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Paulo Valente"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "analyst",
"value": "Jonatan M\u00e4nnchen"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eAllocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows unauthenticated attackers to exhaust the BEAM\u0027s memory and crash the server by streaming a large or slow-trickle unary request body.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ctt\u003e\u0027Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler\u0027:read_full_body/3\u003c/tt\u003e (\u003ctt\u003elib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex\u003c/tt\u003e) accumulates every received chunk into a single growing binary with no size cap. Additionally, when the client omits the \u003ctt\u003egrpc-timeout\u003c/tt\u003e header, the per-chunk read timeout resolves to \u003ctt\u003e:infinity\u003c/tt\u003e, allowing a slow-trickle client to keep the connection alive indefinitely while memory grows. A single connection is sufficient to exhaust server memory and crash the node.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis issue affects grpc from 0.3.1 before 1.0.0.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows unauthenticated attackers to exhaust the BEAM\u0027s memory and crash the server by streaming a large or slow-trickle unary request body.\n\n\u0027Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler\u0027:read_full_body/3 (lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex) accumulates every received chunk into a single growing binary with no size cap. Additionally, when the client omits the grpc-timeout header, the per-chunk read timeout resolves to :infinity, allowing a slow-trickle client to keep the connection alive indefinitely while memory grows. A single connection is sufficient to exhaust server memory and crash the node.\n\nThis issue affects grpc from 0.3.1 before 1.0.0."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-130",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-130 Excessive Allocation"
}
]
},
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-231",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-231 Oversized Serialized Data Payloads"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 8.7,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "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",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-17T04:46:27.584Z",
"orgId": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"shortName": "EEF"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory",
"related"
],
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc/security/advisories/GHSA-q8gf-9rvj-gmgj"
},
{
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-48854.html"
},
{
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-48854"
},
{
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc/commit/49e18c3ec6bb9afe2f712caad3dbab5c56a68a00"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "Unbounded request body accumulation causes memory exhaustion in elixir-grpc/grpc",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "cvelib 1.8.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"assignerShortName": "EEF",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-48854",
"datePublished": "2026-06-15T21:55:23.629Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-05-25T20:44:10.697Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-17T04:46:27.584Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-48853 (GCVE-0-2026-48853)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-06-15 21:56 – Updated: 2026-06-17 04:47
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Remote code execution and denial of service via unsafe Erlang term deserialization in elixir-grpc/grpc
Summary
Deserialization of Untrusted Data and Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerabilities in elixir-grpc grpc allow unauthenticated attackers to crash the BEAM node via atom table exhaustion and, when a decoded term flows into a call site that invokes it, achieve remote code execution on the server.
'Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack':decode/2 (lib/grpc/codec/erlpack.ex) calls :erlang.binary_to_term/1 on the raw gRPC message body without the :safe option, no size bound, and no type guard. Any unauthenticated peer that sends a request with Content-Type: application/grpc+erlpack can send a crafted payload that mints arbitrary new atoms (which are never garbage-collected, exhausting the bounded atom table and crashing the VM) or that encodes a fun term which, if applied anywhere downstream, executes attacker-controlled code inside the server process.
This issue affects grpc from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: poc
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: total
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-06-16 14:44 UTC
CWE
Assigner
References
4 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc/security/advi… | vendor-advisoryrelated |
| https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-48853.html | related |
| https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-48853 | related |
| https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc/commit/272a97… | patch |
Impacted products
2 products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| elixir-grpc | grpc |
Affected:
0.4.0 , < 1.0.0
(semver)
cpe:2.3:a:elixir-grpc:grpc:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
|
| elixir-grpc | grpc |
Affected:
25bcc569fe2cc4478531a6c546c923205fc751c9 , < 272a97a5ea1b46af1819f14a831fcf35fc91f992
(git)
cpe:2.3:a:elixir-grpc:grpc:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-48853",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-06-16T14:44:19.175606Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-16T14:45:02.196Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"exploit"
],
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc/security/advisories/GHSA-grp7-v8xh-rj7h"
}
],
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://repo.hex.pm",
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:elixir-grpc:grpc:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"\u0027Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack\u0027"
],
"packageName": "grpc",
"packageURL": "pkg:hex/grpc",
"product": "grpc",
"programFiles": [
"lib/grpc/codec/erlpack.ex"
],
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack\u0027:decode/2"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc",
"vendor": "elixir-grpc",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "1.0.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0.4.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
},
{
"collectionURL": "https://github.com",
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:elixir-grpc:grpc:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"\u0027Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack\u0027"
],
"packageName": "elixir-grpc/grpc",
"packageURL": "pkg:github/elixir-grpc/grpc",
"product": "grpc",
"programFiles": [
"lib/grpc/codec/erlpack.ex"
],
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack\u0027:decode/2"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc",
"vendor": "elixir-grpc",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "272a97a5ea1b46af1819f14a831fcf35fc91f992",
"status": "affected",
"version": "25bcc569fe2cc4478531a6c546c923205fc751c9",
"versionType": "git"
}
]
}
],
"configurations": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003ctt\u003eGRPC.Codec.Erlpack\u003c/tt\u003e must be explicitly registered as a codec on the gRPC server."
}
],
"value": "GRPC.Codec.Erlpack must be explicitly registered as a codec on the gRPC server."
}
],
"cpeApplicability": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:elixir-grpc:grpc:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "1.0.0",
"versionStartIncluding": "0.4.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Peter Ullrich"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Paulo Valente"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "analyst",
"value": "Jonatan M\u00e4nnchen"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eDeserialization of Untrusted Data and Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerabilities in elixir-grpc grpc allow unauthenticated attackers to crash the BEAM node via atom table exhaustion and, when a decoded term flows into a call site that invokes it, achieve remote code execution on the server.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ctt\u003e\u0027Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack\u0027:decode/2\u003c/tt\u003e (\u003ctt\u003elib/grpc/codec/erlpack.ex\u003c/tt\u003e) calls \u003ctt\u003e:erlang.binary_to_term/1\u003c/tt\u003e on the raw gRPC message body without the \u003ctt\u003e:safe\u003c/tt\u003e option, no size bound, and no type guard. Any unauthenticated peer that sends a request with \u003ctt\u003eContent-Type: application/grpc+erlpack\u003c/tt\u003e can send a crafted payload that mints arbitrary new atoms (which are never garbage-collected, exhausting the bounded atom table and crashing the VM) or that encodes a fun term which, if applied anywhere downstream, executes attacker-controlled code inside the server process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis issue affects grpc from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "Deserialization of Untrusted Data and Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerabilities in elixir-grpc grpc allow unauthenticated attackers to crash the BEAM node via atom table exhaustion and, when a decoded term flows into a call site that invokes it, achieve remote code execution on the server.\n\n\u0027Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack\u0027:decode/2 (lib/grpc/codec/erlpack.ex) calls :erlang.binary_to_term/1 on the raw gRPC message body without the :safe option, no size bound, and no type guard. Any unauthenticated peer that sends a request with Content-Type: application/grpc+erlpack can send a crafted payload that mints arbitrary new atoms (which are never garbage-collected, exhausting the bounded atom table and crashing the VM) or that encodes a fun term which, if applied anywhere downstream, executes attacker-controlled code inside the server process.\n\nThis issue affects grpc from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-586",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-586 Object Injection"
}
]
},
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-231",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-231 Oversized Serialized Data Payloads"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 9.2,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-502",
"description": "CWE-502 Deserialization of Untrusted Data",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
},
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-17T04:47:30.147Z",
"orgId": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"shortName": "EEF"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory",
"related"
],
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc/security/advisories/GHSA-grp7-v8xh-rj7h"
},
{
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-48853.html"
},
{
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-48853"
},
{
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc/commit/272a97a5ea1b46af1819f14a831fcf35fc91f992"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "Remote code execution and denial of service via unsafe Erlang term deserialization in elixir-grpc/grpc",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "cvelib 1.8.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"assignerShortName": "EEF",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-48853",
"datePublished": "2026-06-15T21:56:15.262Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-05-25T20:44:10.696Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-17T04:47:30.147Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-48824 (GCVE-0-2026-48824)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-07-20 15:02 – Updated: 2026-07-20 19:07
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Mailpit: Sibling-endpoint memory-exhaustion DoS via unbounded JSON body on /api/v1/messages, /api/v1/tags, and /api/v1/message/{id}/release (incomplete fix of GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw)
Summary
Mailpit is an email testing tool and API for developers. Prior to version 1.30.1, the fix for GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw (CVE-2026-45710, "Mailpit: Set a default 50MB p/m limit to prevent DoS via unlimited SMTP DATA and /api/v1/send body sizes") wrapped only `POST /api/v1/send` with `http.MaxBytesReader`. The four other Mailpit JSON-body API endpoints `PUT /api/v1/messages` (SetReadStatus), `DELETE /api/v1/messages` (DeleteMessages), `PUT /api/v1/tags` (SetMessageTags), and `POST /api/v1/message/{id}/release` (ReleaseMessage) still call `json.NewDecoder(r.Body)` directly with no body-size cap and remain reachable unauthenticated in the default `docker run axllent/mailpit:latest` deploy. An unauthenticated remote attacker can post a multi-million-element `IDs` slice and drive RSS from ~25 MiB baseline to ~450 MiB per 16 MB request body. Repeating across multiple connections accumulates the same per-request amplification per process. Version 1.30.1 contains a patch.
Severity
5.3 (Medium)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-07-20 19:01 UTC
CWE
- CWE-770 - Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Assigner
References
2 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/axllent/mailpit/security/advis… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
| https://github.com/axllent/mailpit/releases/tag/v1.30.1 | x_refsource_MISC |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-48824",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-07-20T19:01:37.901255Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-07-20T19:07:58.952Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "mailpit",
"vendor": "axllent",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 1.30.1"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Mailpit is an email testing tool and API for developers. Prior to version 1.30.1, the fix for GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw (CVE-2026-45710, \"Mailpit: Set a default 50MB p/m limit to prevent DoS via unlimited SMTP DATA and /api/v1/send body sizes\") wrapped only `POST /api/v1/send` with `http.MaxBytesReader`. The four other Mailpit JSON-body API endpoints `PUT /api/v1/messages` (SetReadStatus), `DELETE /api/v1/messages` (DeleteMessages), `PUT /api/v1/tags` (SetMessageTags), and `POST /api/v1/message/{id}/release` (ReleaseMessage) still call `json.NewDecoder(r.Body)` directly with no body-size cap and remain reachable unauthenticated in the default `docker run axllent/mailpit:latest` deploy. An unauthenticated remote attacker can post a multi-million-element `IDs` slice and drive RSS from ~25 MiB baseline to ~450 MiB per 16 MB request body. Repeating across multiple connections accumulates the same per-request amplification per process. Version 1.30.1 contains a patch."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "LOW",
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"version": "3.1"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-07-20T15:02:52.107Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/axllent/mailpit/security/advisories/GHSA-28pq-6qxg-wg5r",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/axllent/mailpit/security/advisories/GHSA-28pq-6qxg-wg5r"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/axllent/mailpit/releases/tag/v1.30.1",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/axllent/mailpit/releases/tag/v1.30.1"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-28pq-6qxg-wg5r",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Mailpit: Sibling-endpoint memory-exhaustion DoS via unbounded JSON body on /api/v1/messages, /api/v1/tags, and /api/v1/message/{id}/release (incomplete fix of GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw)"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-48824",
"datePublished": "2026-07-20T15:02:52.107Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-05-22T20:57:10.977Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-07-20T19:07:58.952Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-48809 (GCVE-0-2026-48809)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-08-11 18:18 – Updated: 2026-08-11 19:06
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
python-engineio has possible denial of service due to maximum payload size sometimes not being enforced
Summary
python-engineio is a Python implementation of the Engine.IO realtime client and server. Versions prior to 4.13.2 have two specific configurations of the python-engineio server in which the size of incoming messages is not checked before the messages are loaded into memory. An attacker can take advantage of these to cause unnecessary memory allocations in the python-engineio server. The two cases are POST requests, when using ASGI with the long polling transport and WebSocket messages, when using Aiohttp with the WebSocket transport. Version 4.13.2 addresses this issue. ASGI severs now only load the body of incoming requests into memory after the client is confirmed to be known and authenticated, and the payload size is below the maximum allowed size. Requests that do not comply with these requirements are discarded. Aiohttp servers configure the maximum payload size in the underlying WebSocket layer from Aiohttp, so that large messages are discarded by Aiohttp before they are delivered to python-engineio.
Severity
7.5 (High)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-08-11 19:06 UTC
CWE
- CWE-770 - Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Assigner
References
2 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-engineio… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
| https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/ma… | x_refsource_MISC |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| miguelgrinberg | python-engineio |
Affected:
< 4.13.2
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-48809",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-08-11T19:06:09.214695Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-11T19:06:21.334Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "python-engineio",
"vendor": "miguelgrinberg",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 4.13.2"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "python-engineio is a Python implementation of the Engine.IO realtime client and server. Versions prior to 4.13.2 have two specific configurations of the python-engineio server in which the size of incoming messages is not checked before the messages are loaded into memory. An attacker can take advantage of these to cause unnecessary memory allocations in the python-engineio server. The two cases are POST requests, when using ASGI with the long polling transport and WebSocket messages, when using Aiohttp with the WebSocket transport. Version 4.13.2 addresses this issue. ASGI severs now only load the body of incoming requests into memory after the client is confirmed to be known and authenticated, and the payload size is below the maximum allowed size. Requests that do not comply with these requirements are discarded. Aiohttp servers configure the maximum payload size in the underlying WebSocket layer from Aiohttp, so that large messages are discarded by Aiohttp before they are delivered to python-engineio."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 7.5,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-11T18:18:36.625Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-engineio/security/advisories/GHSA-m9gh-vj53-gvh9",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-engineio/security/advisories/GHSA-m9gh-vj53-gvh9"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/python-engineio/PYSEC-2026-3033.yaml",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/python-engineio/PYSEC-2026-3033.yaml"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-m9gh-vj53-gvh9",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "python-engineio has possible denial of service due to maximum payload size sometimes not being enforced"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-48809",
"datePublished": "2026-08-11T18:18:36.625Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-05-22T20:57:10.976Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-11T19:06:21.334Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-48804 (GCVE-0-2026-48804)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-08-11 19:17 – Updated: 2026-08-13 14:39
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
python-socketio: Binary attachment accumulation can cause denial of service
Summary
python-socketio is a Python implementation of the Socket.IO realtime client and server. The python-socketio server stores binary `EVENT` and `ACK` messages in memory while it waits to receive their binary attachments. Once all the attachments are received, these messages are then processed. Prior to version 5.16.4, an attacker can submit a binary message and intentionally omit sending one or more of its attachments to cause the message along with the partial list of received attachments to stay in memory for a long time. Version 5.16.4 takes the following measures to address this issue: Binary packets are only accepted from authenticated clients and, when a client disconnects, the server checks if there is a partial binary message being held for the client and deletes it.
Severity
7.5 (High)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-08-13 14:39 UTC
CWE
- CWE-770 - Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Assigner
References
2 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
| https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio… | x_refsource_MISC |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| miguelgrinberg | python-socketio |
Affected:
< 5.16.4
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-48804",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-08-13T14:39:03.879648Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-13T14:39:14.373Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "python-socketio",
"vendor": "miguelgrinberg",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 5.16.4"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "python-socketio is a Python implementation of the Socket.IO realtime client and server. The python-socketio server stores binary `EVENT` and `ACK` messages in memory while it waits to receive their binary attachments. Once all the attachments are received, these messages are then processed. Prior to version 5.16.4, an attacker can submit a binary message and intentionally omit sending one or more of its attachments to cause the message along with the partial list of received attachments to stay in memory for a long time. Version 5.16.4 takes the following measures to address this issue: Binary packets are only accepted from authenticated clients and, when a client disconnects, the server checks if there is a partial binary message being held for the client and deletes it."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 7.5,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-11T19:17:53.687Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio/security/advisories/GHSA-5w7q-77mv-v69f",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio/security/advisories/GHSA-5w7q-77mv-v69f"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio/commit/4bec3ef87bcfd6ab5b94cd3ac09d873283a6960e",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio/commit/4bec3ef87bcfd6ab5b94cd3ac09d873283a6960e"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-5w7q-77mv-v69f",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "python-socketio: Binary attachment accumulation can cause denial of service"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-48804",
"datePublished": "2026-08-11T19:17:53.687Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-05-22T20:57:10.975Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-13T14:39:14.373Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-48802 (GCVE-0-2026-48802)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-08-11 18:27 – Updated: 2026-08-13 14:35
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
python-engineio has unbound thread allocation that can cause denial of service
Summary
python-engineio is a Python implementation of the Engine.IO realtime client and server. Prior to version 4.13.2, an attacker can cause the creation of unnecessary background threads in the python-engineio server by exploiting the heartbeat mechanism, which launches a thread when a new connection is received, and when the client sends a PONG packet. This issue primarily affects synchronous servers. Asynchronous servers allocate background tasks instead of physical threads, which are lightweight and less likely to cause denial of service. However, the fix that was implemented was also applied to the asynchronous case. Version 4.13.2 addresses this issue as follows: The initial background thread (or async task( for heartbeat management is only launched if a client passes authentication in the `connect` handler; and the server now ensures that there is only one background heatbeat thread (or async task) per client at a given point in time. Out of sequence PONG packets are now discarded when an active heartbeat thread is already running.
Severity
7.5 (High)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-08-13 14:34 UTC
CWE
- CWE-770 - Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Assigner
References
2 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-engineio… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
| https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/ma… | x_refsource_MISC |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| miguelgrinberg | python-engineio |
Affected:
< 4.13.2
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-48802",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-08-13T14:34:21.510007Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-13T14:35:20.691Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "python-engineio",
"vendor": "miguelgrinberg",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 4.13.2"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "python-engineio is a Python implementation of the Engine.IO realtime client and server. Prior to version 4.13.2, an attacker can cause the creation of unnecessary background threads in the python-engineio server by exploiting the heartbeat mechanism, which launches a thread when a new connection is received, and when the client sends a PONG packet. This issue primarily affects synchronous servers. Asynchronous servers allocate background tasks instead of physical threads, which are lightweight and less likely to cause denial of service. However, the fix that was implemented was also applied to the asynchronous case. Version 4.13.2 addresses this issue as follows: The initial background thread (or async task( for heartbeat management is only launched if a client passes authentication in the `connect` handler; and the server now ensures that there is only one background heatbeat thread (or async task) per client at a given point in time. Out of sequence PONG packets are now discarded when an active heartbeat thread is already running."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 7.5,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-11T18:27:50.703Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-engineio/security/advisories/GHSA-cgwc-pv48-fhj5",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-engineio/security/advisories/GHSA-cgwc-pv48-fhj5"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/python-engineio/PYSEC-2026-3032.yaml",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/python-engineio/PYSEC-2026-3032.yaml"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-cgwc-pv48-fhj5",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "python-engineio has unbound thread allocation that can cause denial of service"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-48802",
"datePublished": "2026-08-11T18:27:50.703Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-05-22T20:57:10.975Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-13T14:35:20.691Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
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.