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.
3046 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-M974-XJ4J-7QV5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-11 20:32 – Updated: 2023-05-11 20:32Impact
An attacker is able allocate arbitrarily many bytes in the Bitswap server by sending many WANT_BLOCK and or WANT_HAVE requests which are queued in an unbounded queue, with allocations that persist even if the connection is closed.
This affects users accepting untrusted connections with the Bitswap server, this also affects users using the old API stubs at github.com/ipfs/boxo/bitswap because it transitively uses github.com/ipfs/boxo/bitswap/server.
We have renamed go-libipfs to boxo; this document uses both terms interchangeably. The version numbers for both are applicable, as they share the same historical timeline.
Remediation
Apply one of:
- Update boxo to v0.6.0 or later
- Update boxo to v0.4.1
Note that v0.5.0 is NOT safe, v0.4.1 is a backport of the v0.6.0 security fixes on top of v0.4.0.
Mitigations
- The server now limits how many wantlist entries per peer it knows.
The
MaxQueuedWantlistEntriesPerPeeroption allows configuring how many wantlist entries the server remembers; if a peer sends a wantlist bigger than this (including a sum of multiple delta updates) the server will truncate the wantlist to the match the limit. This defaults to1024entries per peer. - The server now properly clears state about peers when they disconnect.
Peer state is more lazily allocated (only when a wantlist is received in the first place) and is properly cleared when the
PeerDisconnectedcallback is received. - The server now ignores CIDs above some size.
Clients were able to send any CID as long as the total protobuf message were bellow the 4MiB limit. This is allowed to allocate lots of memory with very little entries.
This can be configured using the
MaxCidSizeoption and defaults to168 bytes. - The server now closes the connection if an inline CID is requested (either as
WANT_*orCANCEL). The attack were more effective if done with CIDs that are present in target's blockstore, this is because this will push longer-lasting jobs on some priority queue. Since inline CID are literal data (instead of hashes of data), everyone always "has" any inline CID (since instead of loading the data from disk, it can be extracted from the CID). It makes no sense for anyone to ever ask you about an inline CID since they could also just parse it themselves. Thus, as a defensive measure, we kill the connection with peers that ask about an inline CID.
Vulnerable symbols
github.com/ipfs/go-libipfs/bitswap/server/internal/decision.(*Engine).MessageReceivedgithub.com/ipfs/go-libipfs/bitswap/server/internal/decision.(*Engine).NotifyNewBlocksgithub.com/ipfs/go-libipfs/bitswap/server/internal/decision.(*Engine).findOrCreategithub.com/ipfs/go-libipfs/bitswap/server/internal/decision.(*Engine).PeerConnected
Patches
- https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/commit/9cb5cb54d40b57084d1221ba83b9e6bb3fcc3197 (mitigations 1 and 2)
- https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/commit/62cbac40b96f49e39cd7fedc77ee6b56adce4916 (mitigations 3 and 4)
- https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/commit/baa748b682fabb21a4c1f7628a8af348d4645974 (tests)
Workarounds
If you are using the stubs at github.com/ipfs/go-libipfs/bitswap and not taking advantage of the features provided by the server, refactoring your code to use the new split API will allow you to run in a client-only mode using: github.com/ipfs/boxo/bitswap/client.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/ipfs/go-libipfs"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.5.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.6.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/ipfs/go-libipfs"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.4.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-25568"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-05-11T20:32:18Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-10T14:15:32Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\nAn attacker is able allocate arbitrarily many bytes in the Bitswap server by sending many `WANT_BLOCK` and or `WANT_HAVE` requests which are queued in an unbounded queue, with allocations that persist even if the connection is closed.\nThis affects users accepting untrusted connections with the Bitswap server, this also affects users using the old API stubs at `github.com/ipfs/boxo/bitswap` because it transitively uses `github.com/ipfs/boxo/bitswap/server`.\n\nWe have [renamed go-libipfs to boxo](https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/issues/215); this document uses both terms interchangeably. The version numbers for both are applicable, as they share the same historical timeline.\n\n### Remediation\nApply one of:\n- Update `boxo` to [`v0.6.0`](https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/releases/tag/v0.6.0) or later\n- Update `boxo` to [`v0.4.1`](https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/releases/tag/v0.4.1)\n Note that ***`v0.5.0` is NOT safe***, `v0.4.1` is a backport of the `v0.6.0` security fixes on top of `v0.4.0`.\n\n### Mitigations\n1. The server now limits how many wantlist entries per peer it knows.\n The `MaxQueuedWantlistEntriesPerPeer` option allows configuring how many wantlist entries the server remembers; if a peer sends a wantlist bigger than this (including a sum of multiple delta updates) the server will truncate the wantlist to the match the limit.\n This defaults to `1024` entries per peer.\n2. The server now properly clears state about peers when they disconnect.\n Peer state is more lazily allocated (only when a wantlist is received in the first place) and is properly cleared when the `PeerDisconnected` callback is received.\n3. The server now ignores CIDs above some size.\n Clients were able to send any CID as long as the total protobuf message were bellow the 4MiB limit. This is allowed to allocate lots of memory with very little entries.\n This can be configured using the `MaxCidSize` option and defaults to `168 bytes`.\n4. The server now closes the connection if an inline CID is requested (either as `WANT_*` or `CANCEL`).\n The attack were more effective if done with CIDs that are present in target\u0027s blockstore, this is because this will push longer-lasting jobs on some priority queue.\n Since inline CID are literal data (instead of hashes of data), everyone always \"has\" any inline CID (since instead of loading the data from disk, it can be extracted from the CID). It makes no sense for anyone to ever ask you about an inline CID since they could also just parse it themselves. Thus, as a defensive measure, we kill the connection with peers that ask about an inline CID.\n\n### Vulnerable symbols\n- `github.com/ipfs/go-libipfs/bitswap/server/internal/decision.(*Engine).MessageReceived`\n- `github.com/ipfs/go-libipfs/bitswap/server/internal/decision.(*Engine).NotifyNewBlocks`\n- `github.com/ipfs/go-libipfs/bitswap/server/internal/decision.(*Engine).findOrCreate`\n- `github.com/ipfs/go-libipfs/bitswap/server/internal/decision.(*Engine).PeerConnected`\n\n### Patches\n- https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/commit/9cb5cb54d40b57084d1221ba83b9e6bb3fcc3197 (mitigations 1 and 2)\n- https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/commit/62cbac40b96f49e39cd7fedc77ee6b56adce4916 (mitigations 3 and 4)\n- https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/commit/baa748b682fabb21a4c1f7628a8af348d4645974 (tests)\n\n### Workarounds\nIf you are using the stubs at `github.com/ipfs/go-libipfs/bitswap` and not taking advantage of the features provided by the server, refactoring your code to use the new split API will allow you to run in a client-only mode using: [`github.com/ipfs/boxo/bitswap/client`](https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/ipfs/boxo/bitswap/client).",
"id": "GHSA-m974-xj4j-7qv5",
"modified": "2023-05-11T20:32:18Z",
"published": "2023-05-11T20:32:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/security/advisories/GHSA-m974-xj4j-7qv5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ipfs/go-libipfs/security/advisories/GHSA-m974-xj4j-7qv5"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-25568"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/commit/62cbac40b96f49e39cd7fedc77ee6b56adce4916"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/commit/9cb5cb54d40b57084d1221ba83b9e6bb3fcc3197"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/commit/baa748b682fabb21a4c1f7628a8af348d4645974"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ipfs/boxo"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Boxo bitswap/server: DOS unbounded persistent memory leak"
}
GHSA-M9GH-VJ53-GVH9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-26 20:48 – Updated: 2026-06-26 20:48Impact
There are 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
- WebSocket messages, when using Aiohttp with the WebSocket transport
Patches
Version 4.13.2 addresses this issue as follows:
- 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.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.13.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "python-engineio"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.13.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48809"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-26T20:48:18Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\nThere are 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:\n\n- POST requests, when using ASGI with the long polling transport\n- WebSocket messages, when using Aiohttp with the WebSocket transport\n\n### Patches\nVersion 4.13.2 addresses this issue as follows:\n\n- 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.\n- 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.",
"id": "GHSA-m9gh-vj53-gvh9",
"modified": "2026-06-26T20:48:18Z",
"published": "2026-06-26T20:48:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-engineio/security/advisories/GHSA-m9gh-vj53-gvh9"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-engineio"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "python-engineio has possible denial of service due to maximum payload size sometimes not being enforced"
}
GHSA-M9HM-283G-G7RX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:48 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:48A vulnerability in the handling of internal resources necessary to bring up a large number of Layer 2 broadband remote access subscriber (BRAS) nodes in Juniper Networks Junos OS can cause the Access Node Control Protocol daemon (ANCPD) to crash and restart, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) condition. Continued processing of spoofed subscriber nodes will create a sustained Denial of Service (DoS) condition. When the number of subscribers attempting to connect exceeds the configured maximum-discovery-table-entries value, the subscriber fails to map to an internal neighbor entry, causing the ANCPD process to crash. This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS: All versions prior to 17.3R3-S12; 17.4 versions prior to 17.4R2-S13; 18.1 versions prior to 18.1R3-S13; 18.2 versions prior to 18.2R3-S8; 18.3 versions prior to 18.3R3-S5; 18.4 versions prior to 18.4R1-S8, 18.4R3-S8; 19.1 versions prior to 19.1R3-S4; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R3-S2; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R3-S1; 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R3-S1; 20.1 versions prior to 20.1R2; 20.2 versions prior to 20.2R2; 20.3 versions prior to 20.3R2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-0224"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-04-22T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the handling of internal resources necessary to bring up a large number of Layer 2 broadband remote access subscriber (BRAS) nodes in Juniper Networks Junos OS can cause the Access Node Control Protocol daemon (ANCPD) to crash and restart, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) condition. Continued processing of spoofed subscriber nodes will create a sustained Denial of Service (DoS) condition. When the number of subscribers attempting to connect exceeds the configured maximum-discovery-table-entries value, the subscriber fails to map to an internal neighbor entry, causing the ANCPD process to crash. This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS: All versions prior to 17.3R3-S12; 17.4 versions prior to 17.4R2-S13; 18.1 versions prior to 18.1R3-S13; 18.2 versions prior to 18.2R3-S8; 18.3 versions prior to 18.3R3-S5; 18.4 versions prior to 18.4R1-S8, 18.4R3-S8; 19.1 versions prior to 19.1R3-S4; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R3-S2; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R3-S1; 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R3-S1; 20.1 versions prior to 20.1R2; 20.2 versions prior to 20.2R2; 20.3 versions prior to 20.3R2.",
"id": "GHSA-m9hm-283g-g7rx",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:48:10Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:48:10Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-0224"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kb.juniper.net/JSA11119"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-MC69-XRVC-FGHX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-28 00:32 – Updated: 2025-11-03 21:32The issue was addressed with improved memory handling. This issue is fixed in iPadOS 17.7.4, macOS Ventura 13.7.3, macOS Sonoma 14.7.3, visionOS 2.3, iOS 18.3 and iPadOS 18.3, macOS Sequoia 15.3, watchOS 11.3, tvOS 18.3. Processing an image may lead to a denial-of-service.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-24086"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-27T22:15:15Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The issue was addressed with improved memory handling. This issue is fixed in iPadOS 17.7.4, macOS Ventura 13.7.3, macOS Sonoma 14.7.3, visionOS 2.3, iOS 18.3 and iPadOS 18.3, macOS Sequoia 15.3, watchOS 11.3, tvOS 18.3. Processing an image may lead to a denial-of-service.",
"id": "GHSA-mc69-xrvc-fghx",
"modified": "2025-11-03T21:32:24Z",
"published": "2025-01-28T00:32:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-24086"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122066"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122067"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122068"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122069"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122070"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122071"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122072"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/122073"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Jan/12"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Jan/14"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Jan/15"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Jan/16"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Jan/17"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Jan/19"
}
],
"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-MCPP-GH22-HWJW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-20 21:30 – Updated: 2024-12-03 18:31An issue in the Instructor Appointment Availability module of eSoft Planner 3.24.08271-USA allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted POST request.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-48530"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-20T21:15:07Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue in the Instructor Appointment Availability module of eSoft Planner 3.24.08271-USA allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted POST request.",
"id": "GHSA-mcpp-gh22-hwjw",
"modified": "2024-12-03T18:31:02Z",
"published": "2024-11-20T21:30:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-48530"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/esoft-planner-cve/esoft_planner_cve"
}
],
"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-MCPW-CP35-P3H8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:55 – Updated: 2024-05-02 13:11In OpenStack os-vif 1.15.x before 1.15.2, and 1.16.0, a hard-coded MAC aging time of 0 disables MAC learning in linuxbridge, forcing obligatory Ethernet flooding of non-local destinations, which both impedes network performance and allows users to possibly view the content of packets for instances belonging to other tenants sharing the same network. Only deployments using the linuxbridge backend are affected. This occurs in PyRoute2.add() in internal/command/ip/linux/impl_pyroute2.py.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "os-vif"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.15.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.15.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "os-vif"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.16.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.17.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"1.16.0"
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-15753"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-05-02T13:11:32Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-28T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "In OpenStack os-vif 1.15.x before 1.15.2, and 1.16.0, a hard-coded MAC aging time of 0 disables MAC learning in linuxbridge, forcing obligatory Ethernet flooding of non-local destinations, which both impedes network performance and allows users to possibly view the content of packets for instances belonging to other tenants sharing the same network. Only deployments using the linuxbridge backend are affected. This occurs in PyRoute2.add() in `internal/command/ip/linux/impl_pyroute2.py`.",
"id": "GHSA-mcpw-cp35-p3h8",
"modified": "2024-05-02T13:11:32Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:55:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-15753"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openstack/os-vif/commit/655c83d706f5de8a8cf23430782e065219297aef"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openstack/os-vif/commit/ec9d5430300c908ea9a1c64151eee7af522a44e7"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openstack/os-vif"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://launchpad.net/bugs/1837252"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://review.opendev.org/672834"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://review.opendev.org/678098"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.openstack.org/ossa/OSSA-2019-004.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/08/29/2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "OpenStack os-vif Ageing time of 0 disables linuxbridge MAC learning"
}
GHSA-MCRM-M53H-JVP2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:19 – Updated: 2022-10-27 19:00A vulnerability in the email scanning algorithm of Cisco AsyncOS software for Cisco Email Security Appliance (ESA) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to perform a denial of service (DoS) attack against an affected device. This vulnerability is due to insufficient input validation of incoming emails. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted email through Cisco ESA. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to exhaust all the available CPU resources on an affected device for an extended period of time, preventing other emails from being processed and resulting in a DoS condition.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-34741"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-11-04T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the email scanning algorithm of Cisco AsyncOS software for Cisco Email Security Appliance (ESA) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to perform a denial of service (DoS) attack against an affected device. This vulnerability is due to insufficient input validation of incoming emails. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted email through Cisco ESA. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to exhaust all the available CPU resources on an affected device for an extended period of time, preventing other emails from being processed and resulting in a DoS condition.",
"id": "GHSA-mcrm-m53h-jvp2",
"modified": "2022-10-27T19:00:30Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:19:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-34741"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-esa-dos-JOm9ETfO"
}
],
"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-MCW6-3256-64GG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-05 09:30 – Updated: 2024-12-13 15:51Mattermost Server versions 9.5.x before 9.5.2, 9.4.x before 9.4.4, 9.3.x before 9.3.3, 8.1.x before 8.1.11 don't limit the number of user preferences which allows an attacker to send a large number of user preferences potentially causing denial of service.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "8.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "8.1.11"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.3.0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.3.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.4.0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.4.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.5.0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.5.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-28949"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-04-05T17:05:05Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-05T09:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Mattermost Server versions 9.5.x before 9.5.2, 9.4.x before 9.4.4, 9.3.x before 9.3.3, 8.1.x before 8.1.11 don\u0027t limit the number of user preferences which allows an attacker to send a large number of user preferences potentially causing denial of service.\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-mcw6-3256-64gg",
"modified": "2024-12-13T15:51:20Z",
"published": "2024-04-05T09:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-28949"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/commit/11a21f4da352a472a09de3b8e125514750a6619a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/commit/362b7d29d35c00fe80721d3d47442a4f3168eb2b"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/commit/5632d6b4ff6d019a21bb8ddd037d4a931cd85ae2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/commit/88f9285173dc4cb35fa19a8b8604e098a567f704"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://mattermost.com/security-updates"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2024-2695"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "mattermost/mattermost"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Mattermost Server doesn\u0027t limit the number of user preferences"
}
GHSA-MF77-27MV-MHM4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-21 18:30 – Updated: 2026-01-23 21:30ProFTPD 1.3.7a contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows attackers to overwhelm the server by creating multiple simultaneous FTP connections. Attackers can repeatedly establish connections using threading to exhaust server connection limits and block legitimate user access.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-47865"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-21T18:16:18Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "ProFTPD 1.3.7a contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows attackers to overwhelm the server by creating multiple simultaneous FTP connections. Attackers can repeatedly establish connections using threading to exhaust server connection limits and block legitimate user access.",
"id": "GHSA-mf77-27mv-mhm4",
"modified": "2026-01-23T21:30:42Z",
"published": "2026-01-21T18:30:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-47865"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/proftpd/proftpd/issues/1298"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/proftpd/proftpd"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/49697"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/proftpd-a-remote-denial-of-service"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.proftpd.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:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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-MF9W-W633-HM7W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-01 18:30 – Updated: 2023-11-01 18:30A vulnerability in a logging API in Cisco Firepower Management Center (FMC) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause the device to become unresponsive or trigger an unexpected reload. This vulnerability could also allow an attacker with valid user credentials, but not Administrator privileges, to view a system log file that they would not normally have access to. This vulnerability is due to a lack of rate-limiting of requests that are sent to a specific API that is related to an FMC log. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a high rate of HTTP requests to the API. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition due to the FMC CPU spiking to 100 percent utilization or to the device reloading. CPU utilization would return to normal if the attack traffic was stopped before an unexpected reload was triggered.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-20155"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-01T17:15:11Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in a logging API in Cisco Firepower Management Center (FMC) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause the device to become unresponsive or trigger an unexpected reload. This vulnerability could also allow an attacker with valid user credentials, but not Administrator privileges, to view a system log file that they would not normally have access to. This vulnerability is due to a lack of rate-limiting of requests that are sent to a specific API that is related to an FMC log. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a high rate of HTTP requests to the API. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition due to the FMC CPU spiking to 100 percent utilization or to the device reloading. CPU utilization would return to normal if the attack traffic was stopped before an unexpected reload was triggered.",
"id": "GHSA-mf9w-w633-hm7w",
"modified": "2023-11-01T18:30:33Z",
"published": "2023-11-01T18:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-20155"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-fmc-logview-dos-AYJdeX55"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.