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.
3032 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-RPMF-866Q-6P89
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-06 19:37 – Updated: 2026-05-13 16:29Summary
basic-ftp is vulnerable to client-side denial of service when parsing FTP control-channel multiline responses.
A malicious or compromised FTP server can send an unterminated multiline response during the initial FTP banner phase, before authentication. The client keeps appending attacker-controlled data into FtpContext._partialResponse and repeatedly reparses the accumulated buffer without enforcing a maximum control response size.
As a result, an application using basic-ftp can remain stuck in connect() while memory and CPU usage grow under attacker-controlled input. This can lead to process-level denial of service, container OOM kills, worker restarts, queue backlog, or service degradation in applications that automatically connect to FTP endpoints.
Details
Root cause
The root cause is that incomplete FTP multiline control responses are buffered without an upper bound.
FtpContext stores incomplete control-channel data in _partialResponse:
https://github.com/patrickjuchli/basic-ftp/blob/50827c73ca6c1d786c97276e47be8a33d0f2277d/src/FtpContext.ts#L63-L64
Incoming control-channel data is handled in _onControlSocketData. The implementation concatenates the previous incomplete response with the new chunk, parses the entire accumulated string, and stores parsed.rest back into _partialResponse:
https://github.com/patrickjuchli/basic-ftp/blob/50827c73ca6c1d786c97276e47be8a33d0f2277d/src/FtpContext.ts#L328-L340
The relevant flow is:
completeResponse = this._partialResponse + chunk parsed = parseControlResponse(completeResponse) this._partialResponse = parsed.rest
There is no maximum size check before concatenating, before parsing, or before storing parsed.rest.
The parser accepts incomplete multiline responses and returns the entire unterminated multiline group as rest:
https://github.com/patrickjuchli/basic-ftp/blob/50827c73ca6c1d786c97276e47be8a33d0f2277d/src/parseControlResponse.ts#L15-L43
If a server starts a multiline FTP response:
220-malicious banner starts
but never sends the terminating line:
220 ready
then parseControlResponse() treats the accumulated multiline data as incomplete and returns it as rest.
Because _onControlSocketData() feeds _partialResponse + chunk back into the parser on every new data event, the client repeatedly reparses a growing attacker-controlled buffer. This creates both memory growth and increasing parsing work.
Why this is security-relevant
The vulnerable component is a client library. The attacker does not need to authenticate to the victim system and does not need valid FTP credentials.
The attack occurs automatically when an application using basic-ftp connects to a malicious or compromised FTP server. The malicious response is sent as the FTP server banner before login. No additional user interaction is required after the application initiates a normal FTP connection.
This is realistic for applications that use FTP for:
- scheduled imports or exports
- customer-provided FTP endpoints
- backup or synchronization jobs
- CI/CD artifact mirroring
- document ingestion pipelines
- legacy business integrations
In those environments, one malicious or compromised FTP endpoint can cause the Node.js process using basic-ftp to consume excessive memory and CPU or remain stuck in a pending connection state.
Proof of Concept
The PoC uses a local malicious FTP server that accepts a victim connection and sends an unterminated multiline FTP banner. The banner starts with 220-, but the server never sends the required terminating 220 line.
Reproduction steps
From the root of the basic-ftp project:
npm ci
npm run buildOnly
CHUNKS=1000 node poc_control_parser_direct.js | tee poc-results/parser_direct_1000.log
Run the end-to-end malicious FTP server PoC:
CHUNK_SIZE=8192 CHUNKS=1000 DELAY_MS=1 node poc_control_multiline_dos.js | tee poc-results/control_multiline_dos_1000.log
control_multiline_dos_1000.log
Observed result: parser-only PoC
[basic-ftp parseControlResponse incomplete multiline DoS]
Input fed: 7.81 MiB
Retained rest: 7.81 MiB
Initial rss/heap: 54.77 MiB 3.69 MiB
Final rss/heap: 141.64 MiB 80.77 MiB
This shows that parseControlResponse() retained the full unterminated multiline response as rest.
The retained buffer grew to 7.81 MiB. Heap usage increased from 3.69 MiB to 80.77 MiB, and RSS increased from 54.77 MiB to 141.64 MiB.
Observed result: end-to-end malicious FTP server PoC
[server] listening on 127.0.0.1:34429
[server] victim connected
[progress] chunks=850 sent=6.6 MiB partialResponse=6.6 MiB heapUsed=227.5 MiB rss=292.4 MiB
[progress] chunks=900 sent=7.0 MiB partialResponse=7.0 MiB heapUsed=213.1 MiB rss=278.0 MiB
[final-before-close] chunks=1000 sent=7.8 MiB partialResponse=7.8 MiB heapUsed=82.1 MiB rss=146.8 MiB
[result] client connect() is still pending because the multiline response never terminated
Only 7.8 MiB of malicious control-channel data was sent. The client retained 7.8 MiB in _partialResponse, showed large memory spikes, and remained pending inside connect() because the multiline response was never terminated.
Expected behavior
The client should enforce a maximum size for incomplete FTP control responses. If the accumulated multiline response exceeds a safe limit, the client should close the connection and reject the active task with an error.
The client should not allow a remote FTP server to make _partialResponse grow without bound.
Actual behavior
A malicious FTP server can keep the client in a pending connection state by sending an unterminated multiline control response. basic-ftp continues buffering and reparsing the accumulated data without a maximum response size.
Impact
A malicious or compromised FTP server can cause denial of service in applications using basic-ftp.
Possible real-world impact includes:
- Node.js process memory exhaustion
- container OOM kill
- worker crash or restart loop
- event loop CPU pressure due to repeated reparsing
- stuck FTP jobs
- queue backlog in scheduled import/export systems
- degraded availability of services relying on automated FTP ingestion
Threat model
The attacker controls, compromises, or can impersonate an FTP server that a victim application connects to.
Examples:
- A SaaS application allows customers to configure external FTP endpoints for automated imports.
- A backend job periodically pulls files from partner FTP servers.
- A document ingestion pipeline connects to FTP endpoints supplied by external users.
- A legacy integration uses FTP for scheduled synchronization.
- A build or deployment pipeline mirrors artifacts from an FTP server.
In each case, the victim application initiates a normal FTP connection. The malicious server sends an unterminated multiline banner before authentication. The vulnerable client then buffers and reparses the response indefinitely.
No FTP credentials are required for exploitation because the attack happens before login.
Suggested fix
Introduce a maximum control response buffer size, especially for incomplete multiline responses.
Recommended changes:
- Add a
maxControlResponseBytesormaxControlResponseLengthlimit. - Enforce the limit before or immediately after appending new control-channel data.
- Close the connection and reject the active task when the limit is exceeded.
- Add regression tests for unterminated multiline responses.
Example defensive logic:
if (completeResponse.length > maxControlResponseLength) {
closeWithError(new Error("FTP control response exceeded maximum allowed size"))
}
A regression test should verify that a response beginning with 220- and never terminating with 220 is rejected after the configured size limit instead of being retained indefinitely.
Suggested regression test scenario
A test server should:
- Accept a client connection.
- Send an FTP multiline response opener such as
220-malicious banner\r\n. - Continue sending additional lines without ever sending the terminating
220line. - Verify that the client rejects the connection once the configured response-size limit is exceeded.
- Verify that
_partialResponsedoes not grow without bound.
Credit request
If you publish an advisory or assign a CVE, please credit me as:
Ali Firas (thesmartshadow) - https://www.smartshadow.dev
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 5.3.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "basic-ftp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.3.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-44240"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-06T19:37:33Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-12T21:16:16Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\n`basic-ftp` is vulnerable to client-side denial of service when parsing FTP control-channel multiline responses.\n\nA malicious or compromised FTP server can send an unterminated multiline response during the initial FTP banner phase, before authentication. The client keeps appending attacker-controlled data into `FtpContext._partialResponse` and repeatedly reparses the accumulated buffer without enforcing a maximum control response size.\n\nAs a result, an application using `basic-ftp` can remain stuck in `connect()` while memory and CPU usage grow under attacker-controlled input. This can lead to process-level denial of service, container OOM kills, worker restarts, queue backlog, or service degradation in applications that automatically connect to FTP endpoints.\n\n---\n\n## Details\n\n### Root cause\n\nThe root cause is that incomplete FTP multiline control responses are buffered without an upper bound.\n\n`FtpContext` stores incomplete control-channel data in `_partialResponse`:\n\n\nhttps://github.com/patrickjuchli/basic-ftp/blob/50827c73ca6c1d786c97276e47be8a33d0f2277d/src/FtpContext.ts#L63-L64\n\n\nIncoming control-channel data is handled in `_onControlSocketData`. The implementation concatenates the previous incomplete response with the new chunk, parses the entire accumulated string, and stores `parsed.rest` back into `_partialResponse`:\n\n\nhttps://github.com/patrickjuchli/basic-ftp/blob/50827c73ca6c1d786c97276e47be8a33d0f2277d/src/FtpContext.ts#L328-L340\n\n\nThe relevant flow is:\n\n\ncompleteResponse = this._partialResponse + chunk\nparsed = parseControlResponse(completeResponse)\nthis._partialResponse = parsed.rest\n\n\nThere is no maximum size check before concatenating, before parsing, or before storing `parsed.rest`.\n\nThe parser accepts incomplete multiline responses and returns the entire unterminated multiline group as `rest`:\n\n\nhttps://github.com/patrickjuchli/basic-ftp/blob/50827c73ca6c1d786c97276e47be8a33d0f2277d/src/parseControlResponse.ts#L15-L43\n\n\nIf a server starts a multiline FTP response:\n\n\n220-malicious banner starts\n\n\nbut never sends the terminating line:\n\n\n220 ready\n\n\nthen `parseControlResponse()` treats the accumulated multiline data as incomplete and returns it as `rest`.\n\nBecause `_onControlSocketData()` feeds `_partialResponse + chunk` back into the parser on every new data event, the client repeatedly reparses a growing attacker-controlled buffer. This creates both memory growth and increasing parsing work.\n\n### Why this is security-relevant\n\nThe vulnerable component is a client library. The attacker does not need to authenticate to the victim system and does not need valid FTP credentials.\n\nThe attack occurs automatically when an application using `basic-ftp` connects to a malicious or compromised FTP server. The malicious response is sent as the FTP server banner before login. No additional user interaction is required after the application initiates a normal FTP connection.\n\nThis is realistic for applications that use FTP for:\n\n- scheduled imports or exports\n- customer-provided FTP endpoints\n- backup or synchronization jobs\n- CI/CD artifact mirroring\n- document ingestion pipelines\n- legacy business integrations\n\nIn those environments, one malicious or compromised FTP endpoint can cause the Node.js process using `basic-ftp` to consume excessive memory and CPU or remain stuck in a pending connection state.\n\n---\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\nThe PoC uses a local malicious FTP server that accepts a victim connection and sends an unterminated multiline FTP banner. The banner starts with `220-`, but the server never sends the required terminating `220 ` line.\n\n### Reproduction steps\n\nFrom the root of the `basic-ftp` project:\n\n```bash\nnpm ci\nnpm run buildOnly\n```\n\n[poc_control_parser_direct.js](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/27051425/poc_control_parser_direct.js)\n\n```bash\nCHUNKS=1000 node poc_control_parser_direct.js | tee poc-results/parser_direct_1000.log\n```\n\n[parser_direct_1000.log](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/27051430/parser_direct_1000.log)\n\nRun the end-to-end malicious FTP server PoC:\n\n[poc_control_multiline_dos.js](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/27051385/poc_control_multiline_dos.js)\n\n```bash\nCHUNK_SIZE=8192 CHUNKS=1000 DELAY_MS=1 node poc_control_multiline_dos.js | tee poc-results/control_multiline_dos_1000.log\n```\n\n[control_multiline_dos_1000.log](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/27051397/control_multiline_dos_1000.log)\n\n### Observed result: parser-only PoC\n\n```text\n[basic-ftp parseControlResponse incomplete multiline DoS]\nInput fed: 7.81 MiB\nRetained rest: 7.81 MiB\nInitial rss/heap: 54.77 MiB 3.69 MiB\nFinal rss/heap: 141.64 MiB 80.77 MiB\n```\n\nThis shows that `parseControlResponse()` retained the full unterminated multiline response as `rest`.\n\nThe retained buffer grew to `7.81 MiB`. Heap usage increased from `3.69 MiB` to `80.77 MiB`, and RSS increased from `54.77 MiB` to `141.64 MiB`.\n\n### Observed result: end-to-end malicious FTP server PoC\n\n```text\n[server] listening on 127.0.0.1:34429\n[server] victim connected\n[progress] chunks=850 sent=6.6 MiB partialResponse=6.6 MiB heapUsed=227.5 MiB rss=292.4 MiB\n[progress] chunks=900 sent=7.0 MiB partialResponse=7.0 MiB heapUsed=213.1 MiB rss=278.0 MiB\n[final-before-close] chunks=1000 sent=7.8 MiB partialResponse=7.8 MiB heapUsed=82.1 MiB rss=146.8 MiB\n[result] client connect() is still pending because the multiline response never terminated\n```\n\nOnly `7.8 MiB` of malicious control-channel data was sent. The client retained `7.8 MiB` in `_partialResponse`, showed large memory spikes, and remained pending inside `connect()` because the multiline response was never terminated.\n\n---\n\n## Expected behavior\n\nThe client should enforce a maximum size for incomplete FTP control responses. If the accumulated multiline response exceeds a safe limit, the client should close the connection and reject the active task with an error.\n\nThe client should not allow a remote FTP server to make `_partialResponse` grow without bound.\n\n---\n\n## Actual behavior\n\nA malicious FTP server can keep the client in a pending connection state by sending an unterminated multiline control response. `basic-ftp` continues buffering and reparsing the accumulated data without a maximum response size.\n\n---\n\n## Impact\n\nA malicious or compromised FTP server can cause denial of service in applications using `basic-ftp`.\n\nPossible real-world impact includes:\n\n- Node.js process memory exhaustion\n- container OOM kill\n- worker crash or restart loop\n- event loop CPU pressure due to repeated reparsing\n- stuck FTP jobs\n- queue backlog in scheduled import/export systems\n- degraded availability of services relying on automated FTP ingestion\n\n---\n\n## Threat model\n\nThe attacker controls, compromises, or can impersonate an FTP server that a victim application connects to.\n\nExamples:\n\n1. A SaaS application allows customers to configure external FTP endpoints for automated imports.\n2. A backend job periodically pulls files from partner FTP servers.\n3. A document ingestion pipeline connects to FTP endpoints supplied by external users.\n4. A legacy integration uses FTP for scheduled synchronization.\n5. A build or deployment pipeline mirrors artifacts from an FTP server.\n\nIn each case, the victim application initiates a normal FTP connection. The malicious server sends an unterminated multiline banner before authentication. The vulnerable client then buffers and reparses the response indefinitely.\n\nNo FTP credentials are required for exploitation because the attack happens before login.\n\n---\n\n## Suggested fix\n\nIntroduce a maximum control response buffer size, especially for incomplete multiline responses.\n\nRecommended changes:\n\n- Add a `maxControlResponseBytes` or `maxControlResponseLength` limit.\n- Enforce the limit before or immediately after appending new control-channel data.\n- Close the connection and reject the active task when the limit is exceeded.\n- Add regression tests for unterminated multiline responses.\n\nExample defensive logic:\n\n```text\nif (completeResponse.length \u003e maxControlResponseLength) {\n closeWithError(new Error(\"FTP control response exceeded maximum allowed size\"))\n}\n```\n\nA regression test should verify that a response beginning with `220-` and never terminating with `220 ` is rejected after the configured size limit instead of being retained indefinitely.\n\n---\n\n## Suggested regression test scenario\n\nA test server should:\n\n1. Accept a client connection.\n2. Send an FTP multiline response opener such as `220-malicious banner\\r\\n`.\n3. Continue sending additional lines without ever sending the terminating `220 ` line.\n4. Verify that the client rejects the connection once the configured response-size limit is exceeded.\n5. Verify that `_partialResponse` does not grow without bound.\n\n## Credit request\nIf you publish an advisory or assign a CVE, please credit me as:\n\nAli Firas (thesmartshadow) - https://www.smartshadow.dev",
"id": "GHSA-rpmf-866q-6p89",
"modified": "2026-05-13T16:29:59Z",
"published": "2026-05-06T19:37:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/patrickjuchli/basic-ftp/security/advisories/GHSA-rpmf-866q-6p89"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-44240"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/patrickjuchli/basic-ftp"
}
],
"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": "basic-ftp allows a malicious FTP server to cause client-side denial of service via unbounded multiline control response buffering"
}
GHSA-RQ42-58QF-V3QX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-17 21:38 – Updated: 2023-11-20 22:06Summary
Application is using two login methods and one of them is using GET request for authentication. There is no rate limiting security feature at GET request or backend is not validating that.
PoC
Go to /?username=admin&password=password&submit=
Capture request in Burpsuite intruder and add payload marker at password parameter value.
Start the attack after adding your password list
We have added 74 passwords
Check screenshot for more info
Impact
An attacker can Bruteforce user accounts and using GET request for authentication is not recommended because certain web servers logs all requests in old logs which can also store victim user credentials.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "librenms/librenms"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "23.11.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-46745"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-307",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-11-17T21:38:42Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-17T22:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\nApplication is using two login methods and one of them is using GET request for authentication. There is no rate limiting security feature at GET request or backend is not validating that. \n\n### PoC\nGo to /?username=admin\u0026password=password\u0026submit=\nCapture request in Burpsuite intruder and add payload marker at password parameter value.\nStart the attack after adding your password list\nWe have added 74 passwords\nCheck screenshot for more info\n\u003cimg width=\"1241\" alt=\"Screenshot 2023-11-06 at 8 55 19\u202fPM\" src=\"https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/31764504/280905148-42274f1e-f869-4145-95b4-71c0bffde3a0.png\"\u003e\n\n### Impact\nAn attacker can Bruteforce user accounts and using GET request for authentication is not recommended because certain web servers logs all requests in old logs which can also store victim user credentials.",
"id": "GHSA-rq42-58qf-v3qx",
"modified": "2023-11-20T22:06:37Z",
"published": "2023-11-17T21:38:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/librenms/librenms/security/advisories/GHSA-rq42-58qf-v3qx"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-46745"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/librenms/librenms/pull/15558"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/librenms/librenms/commit/7c006e96251ae1d32e1a015b361a7bfbb815c028"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/librenms/librenms"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/librenms/librenms/releases/tag/23.11.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "LibreNMS vulnerable to rate limiting bypass on login page"
}
GHSA-RQ6Q-W27X-F9X2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-27 21:31 – Updated: 2025-08-27 21:31An issue has been discovered in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 14.1 before 18.1.5, 18.2 before 18.2.5, and 18.3 before 18.3.1 that that under certain conditions could have allowed an unauthenticated attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition affecting all users by sending specially crafted GraphQL requests.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-4225"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-27T20:15:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue has been discovered in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 14.1 before 18.1.5, 18.2 before 18.2.5, and 18.3 before 18.3.1 that that under certain conditions could have allowed an unauthenticated attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition affecting all users by sending specially crafted GraphQL requests.",
"id": "GHSA-rq6q-w27x-f9x2",
"modified": "2025-08-27T21:31:38Z",
"published": "2025-08-27T21:31:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-4225"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/3100624"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/538983"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RQJQ-MRGX-85HP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-05-18 18:21 – Updated: 2023-10-02 14:01HashiCorp Consul and Consul Enterprise include an HTTP API (introduced in 1.2.0) and DNS (introduced in 1.4.3) caching feature that was vulnerable to denial of service.
Specific Go Packages Affected
github.com/hashicorp/consul/agent/config
Fix
The vulnerability is fixed in versions 1.6.6 and 1.7.4.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/consul"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.2.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.6.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/consul"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.7.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.7.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-13250"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-05-12T22:00:34Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2020-06-11T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "HashiCorp Consul and Consul Enterprise include an HTTP API (introduced in 1.2.0) and DNS (introduced in 1.4.3) caching feature that was vulnerable to denial of service.\n\n### Specific Go Packages Affected\ngithub.com/hashicorp/consul/agent/config\n\n### Fix\nThe vulnerability is fixed in versions 1.6.6 and 1.7.4.",
"id": "GHSA-rqjq-mrgx-85hp",
"modified": "2023-10-02T14:01:45Z",
"published": "2021-05-18T18:21:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-13250"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/hashicorp/consul/pull/8023"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/hashicorp/consul/commit/72f92ae7ca4cabc1dc3069362a9b64ef46941432"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/hashicorp/consul/blob/v1.6.6/CHANGELOG.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/hashicorp/consul/blob/v1.7.4/CHANGELOG.md"
}
],
"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": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in Hashicorp Consul"
}
GHSA-RQMR-335H-88PX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:08 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:08An issue has been found in function vfprintf in PDF2JSON 0.70 that allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service due to a stack overflow.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-19463"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770",
"CWE-787"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-07-21T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue has been found in function vfprintf in PDF2JSON 0.70 that allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service due to a stack overflow.",
"id": "GHSA-rqmr-335h-88px",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:08:33Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:08:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-19463"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/flexpaper/pdf2json/issues/24"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/770.html"
}
],
"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-RQMV-893J-49P8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:36 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:36An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.14.x. Recording of the per-vCPU control block mapping maintained by Xen and that of pointers into the control block is reversed. The consumer assumes, seeing the former initialized, that the latter are also ready for use. Malicious or buggy guest kernels can mount a Denial of Service (DoS) attack affecting the entire system.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-29570"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-12-15T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.14.x. Recording of the per-vCPU control block mapping maintained by Xen and that of pointers into the control block is reversed. The consumer assumes, seeing the former initialized, that the latter are also ready for use. Malicious or buggy guest kernels can mount a Denial of Service (DoS) attack affecting the entire system.",
"id": "GHSA-rqmv-893j-49p8",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:36:35Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:36:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-29570"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/2C6M6S3CIMEBACH6O7V4H2VDANMO6TVA"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OBLV6L6Q24PPQ2CRFXDX4Q76KU776GKI"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202107-30"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2020/dsa-4812"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://xenbits.xenproject.org/xsa/advisory-358.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/12/16/4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-RQPH-VQWM-22VC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 00:00 – Updated: 2024-03-14 20:54In spring framework versions prior to 5.3.20+ , 5.2.22+ and old unsupported versions, application with a STOMP over WebSocket endpoint is vulnerable to a denial of service attack by an authenticated user.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.springframework:spring-messaging"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "5.3.0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.3.20"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 5.2.21.RELEASE"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.springframework:spring-messaging"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.2.22.RELEASE"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-22971"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-05-24T22:24:29Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-05-12T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In spring framework versions prior to 5.3.20+ , 5.2.22+ and old unsupported versions, application with a STOMP over WebSocket endpoint is vulnerable to a denial of service attack by an authenticated user.",
"id": "GHSA-rqph-vqwm-22vc",
"modified": "2024-03-14T20:54:19Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T00:00:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-22971"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/commit/159a99bbafdd6c01871228113d7042c3f83f360f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/commit/dc2947c52df18d5e99cad03383f7d6ba13d031fd"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20220616-0003"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tanzu.vmware.com/security/cve-2022-22971"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2022.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in Spring Framework"
}
GHSA-RR6R-CFGF-GC6H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-03-06 00:31 – Updated: 2024-11-07 12:30When parsing a multipart form (either explicitly with Request.ParseMultipartForm or implicitly with Request.FormValue, Request.PostFormValue, or Request.FormFile), limits on the total size of the parsed form were not applied to the memory consumed while reading a single form line. This permits a maliciously crafted input containing very long lines to cause allocation of arbitrarily large amounts of memory, potentially leading to memory exhaustion. With fix, the ParseMultipartForm function now correctly limits the maximum size of form lines.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-45290"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-03-05T23:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "When parsing a multipart form (either explicitly with Request.ParseMultipartForm or implicitly with Request.FormValue, Request.PostFormValue, or Request.FormFile), limits on the total size of the parsed form were not applied to the memory consumed while reading a single form line. This permits a maliciously crafted input containing very long lines to cause allocation of arbitrarily large amounts of memory, potentially leading to memory exhaustion. With fix, the ParseMultipartForm function now correctly limits the maximum size of form lines.",
"id": "GHSA-rr6r-cfgf-gc6h",
"modified": "2024-11-07T12:30:34Z",
"published": "2024-03-06T00:31:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-45290"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://go.dev/cl/569341"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://go.dev/issue/65383"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://groups.google.com/g/golang-announce/c/5pwGVUPoMbg"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2024-2599"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240329-0004"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/08/4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RR84-59X2-RRF4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-14 00:00 – Updated: 2022-04-22 00:01Mattermost Playbooks plugin v1.24.0 and earlier fails to properly check the limit on the number of webhooks, which allows authenticated and authorized users to create a specifically drafted Playbook which could trigger a large amount of webhook requests leading to Denial of Service.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-1333"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-04-13T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Mattermost Playbooks plugin v1.24.0 and earlier fails to properly check the limit on the number of webhooks, which allows authenticated and authorized users to create a specifically drafted Playbook which could trigger a large amount of webhook requests leading to Denial of Service.",
"id": "GHSA-rr84-59x2-rrf4",
"modified": "2022-04-22T00:01:08Z",
"published": "2022-04-14T00:00:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-1333"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://mattermost.com/security-updates"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RR9H-QQWQ-GM72
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-24 15:30 – Updated: 2025-11-21 21:30Ribose RNP before 0.16.3 may hang when the input is malformed.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-29479"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-04-24T15:15:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Ribose RNP before 0.16.3 may hang when the input is malformed.",
"id": "GHSA-rr9h-qqwq-gm72",
"modified": "2025-11-21T21:30:15Z",
"published": "2023-04-24T15:30:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-29479"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cve.ribose.com/advisories/ra-2023-04-11"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://open.ribose.com/advisories/ra-2023-04-11"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.rnpgp.org/blog/2023-04-13-rnp-release-0-16-3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
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.