CWE-770
Weakness 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.
Dimensions
- Behavior-Type: Allocation
- Behavior-Property: Without Limits or Throttling
- Resource-Type: Resources
Mapping guidance
This CWE entry is at the Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.
Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.
Relationships and members
Modes of introduction
OMISSION: This weakness is caused by missing a security tactic during the architecture and design phase.
Detection methods
Manual Static Analysis
Manual static analysis can be useful for finding this weakness, but it might not achieve desired code coverage within limited time constraints. If denial-of-service is not considered a significant risk, or if there is strong emphasis on consequences such as code execution, then manual analysis may not focus on this weakness at all.
Fuzzing
While fuzzing is typically geared toward finding low-level implementation bugs, it can inadvertently find uncontrolled resource allocation problems. This can occur when the fuzzer generates a large number of test cases but does not restart the targeted product in between test cases. If an individual test case produces a crash, but it does not do so reliably, then an inability to limit resource allocation may be the cause.
When the allocation is directly affected by numeric inputs, then fuzzing may produce indications of this weakness.
Effectiveness: Opportunistic
Automated Dynamic Analysis
Certain automated dynamic analysis techniques may be effective in producing side effects of uncontrolled resource allocation problems, especially with resources such as processes, memory, and connections. The technique may involve generating a large number of requests to the product within a short time frame. Manual analysis is likely required to interpret the results.
Automated Static Analysis
Specialized configuration or tuning may be required to train automated tools to recognize this weakness.
Automated static analysis typically has limited utility in recognizing unlimited allocation problems, except for the missing release of program-independent system resources such as files, sockets, and processes, or unchecked arguments to memory. For system resources, automated static analysis may be able to detect circumstances in which resources are not released after they have expired, or if too much of a resource is requested at once, as can occur with memory. Automated analysis of configuration files may be able to detect settings that do not specify a maximum value.
Automated static analysis tools will not be appropriate for detecting exhaustion of custom resources, such as an intended security policy in which a bulletin board user is only allowed to make a limited number of posts per day.
Notes
Relationship
This entry is different from uncontrolled resource consumption (CWE-400) in that there are other weaknesses that are related to inability to control resource consumption, such as holding on to a resource too long after use, or not correctly keeping track of active resources so that they can be managed and released when they are finished (CWE-771).
Theoretical
Vulnerability theory is largely about how behaviors and resources interact. "Resource exhaustion" can be regarded as either a consequence or an attack, depending on the perspective. This entry is an attempt to reflect one of the underlying weaknesses that enable these attacks (or consequences) to take place.
Content history
Contributed or reviewed taxonomy mappings for ISA/IEC 62443
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
updated Relationships
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Detection_Factors, Observed_Examples, References, Time_of_Introduction
updated Common_Consequences, Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns
updated Common_Consequences, Potential_Mitigations, References
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Potential_Mitigations
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Detection_Factors, Relationships
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Relationships
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Demonstrative_Examples, References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
updated Relationships
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Modes_of_Introduction, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated References
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
updated Applicable_Platforms, Description, Maintenance_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, Relationship_Notes, Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Observed_Examples
updated Observed_Examples, References
updated Description, Detection_Factors
updated References, Relationships
updated Mapping_Notes
updated Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, References
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Dimensions
4417 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-96VR-63HC-8MGG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:36 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:36A vulnerability in the Play Framework of Cisco Elastic Services Controller (ESC) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to gain full access to the affected system. The vulnerability is due to static, default credentials for the Cisco ESC UI that are shared between installations. An attacker who can extract the static credentials from an existing installation of Cisco ESC could generate an admin session token that allows access to all instances of the ESC web UI. This vulnerability affects Cisco Elastic Services Controller prior to releases 2.3.1.434 and 2.3.2. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvc76627.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-6713"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-07-06T00:29:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the Play Framework of Cisco Elastic Services Controller (ESC) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to gain full access to the affected system. The vulnerability is due to static, default credentials for the Cisco ESC UI that are shared between installations. An attacker who can extract the static credentials from an existing installation of Cisco ESC could generate an admin session token that allows access to all instances of the ESC web UI. This vulnerability affects Cisco Elastic Services Controller prior to releases 2.3.1.434 and 2.3.2. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvc76627.",
"id": "GHSA-96vr-63hc-8mgg",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:36:30Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:36:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-6713"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20170705-esc2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/99437"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9762-RJPX-63V2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-22 03:33 – Updated: 2026-10-22 15:32Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Drupal Webform allows Excessive Allocation. This issue affects Webform versions: from 0.0.0 to 6.2.12, from 6.3.0 to 6.3.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-96365"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-22T02:17:06Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Drupal Webform allows Excessive Allocation. This issue affects Webform versions: from 0.0.0 to 6.2.12, from 6.3.0 to 6.3.1.",
"id": "GHSA-9762-rjpx-63v2",
"modified": "2026-10-22T15:32:42Z",
"published": "2026-10-22T03:33:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-96365"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.drupal.org/sa-contrib-2026-170"
}
],
"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-976Q-HMQ8-MP6G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-12 00:01 – Updated: 2022-05-19 00:00An issue has been discovered in GitLab affecting all versions before 14.8.6, all versions starting from 14.9 before 14.9.4, all versions starting from 14.10 before 14.10.1. GitLab was incorrectly verifying throttling limits for authenticated package requests which resulted in limits not being enforced.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-1428"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-05-11T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue has been discovered in GitLab affecting all versions before 14.8.6, all versions starting from 14.9 before 14.9.4, all versions starting from 14.10 before 14.10.1. GitLab was incorrectly verifying throttling limits for authenticated package requests which resulted in limits not being enforced.",
"id": "GHSA-976q-hmq8-mp6g",
"modified": "2022-05-19T00:00:17Z",
"published": "2022-05-12T00:01:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-1428"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/cves/-/blob/master/2022/CVE-2022-1428.json"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/342481"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-97C7-3PC7-PW7R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-11-08 03:30 – Updated: 2026-11-08 03:30Sveltejs devalue from 1.0.0 before 5.9.3 contains a memory exhaustion flaw in uneval, whose generated code for sparse arrays allocates memory proportional to the array's declared length when evaluated. Attackers who can influence a very large sparse array serialized by an application can exhaust memory in the browser or runtime evaluating the output.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-123564"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-11-08T02:16:48Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Sveltejs devalue from 1.0.0 before 5.9.3 contains a memory exhaustion flaw in uneval, whose generated code for sparse arrays allocates memory proportional to the array\u0027s declared length when evaluated. Attackers who can influence a very large sparse array serialized by an application can exhaust memory in the browser or runtime evaluating the output.",
"id": "GHSA-97c7-3pc7-pw7r",
"modified": "2026-11-08T03:30:33Z",
"published": "2026-11-08T03:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/devalue/security/advisories/GHSA-wf3x-273g-mvxv"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-123564"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/sveltejs-devalue-before-5.9.3-memory-exhaustion-via-uneval-sparse-arrays"
}
],
"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-97R5-5FR5-P642
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-14 06:31 – Updated: 2026-05-14 06:31GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 18.5 before 18.9.7, 18.10 before 18.10.6, and 18.11 before 18.11.3 that could have allowed an unauthenticated user to cause denial of service by sending specially crafted JSON payloads due to insufficient input validation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-14870"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-14T06:16:20Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 18.5 before 18.9.7, 18.10 before 18.10.6, and 18.11 before 18.11.3 that could have allowed an unauthenticated user to cause denial of service by sending specially crafted JSON payloads due to insufficient input validation.",
"id": "GHSA-97r5-5fr5-p642",
"modified": "2026-05-14T06:31:33Z",
"published": "2026-05-14T06:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-14870"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/3446641"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2026/05/13/patch-release-gitlab-18-11-3-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/work_items/584490"
}
],
"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-97RF-Q735-33R7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-08 21:34 – Updated: 2026-09-10 18:31In initForUserNoTracing of VoiceInteractionManagerService.java, there is a possible persistent denial of service due to resource exhaustion. This could lead to local denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-28633"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-08T19:17:54Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In initForUserNoTracing of VoiceInteractionManagerService.java, there is a possible persistent denial of service due to resource exhaustion. This could lead to local denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.",
"id": "GHSA-97rf-q735-33r7",
"modified": "2026-09-10T18:31:32Z",
"published": "2026-09-08T21:34:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28633"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/2026/2026-09-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-97VP-PWQJ-46QC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-17 17:48 – Updated: 2026-03-30 14:04Summary
A Remote OOM (Out-of-Memory) vulnerability exists in the Sliver C2 server's mTLS and WireGuard C2 transport layer. The socketReadEnvelope and socketWGReadEnvelope functions trust an attacker-controlled 4-byte length prefix to allocate memory, with ServerMaxMessageSize allowing single allocations of up to ~2 GiB. A compromised implant or an attacker with valid credentials can exploit this by sending fabricated length prefixes over concurrent yamux streams (up to 128 per connection), forcing the server to attempt allocating ~256 GiB of memory and triggering an OS OOM kill. This crashes the Sliver server, disrupts all active implant sessions, and may degrade or kill other processes sharing the same host. The same pattern also affects all implant-side readers, which have no upper-bound check at all.
Root Cause Analysis
The C2 envelope framing protocol uses a 4-byte little-endian length prefix to delimit protobuf messages on the wire:
[raw_signature (74 bytes)] [uint32 length] [protobuf data]
In socketReadEnvelope, after reading the length prefix, the server immediately allocates a buffer of the attacker-specified size:
// server/c2/mtls.go
const ServerMaxMessageSize = (2 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024) - 1 // ~2 GiB
dataLength := int(binary.LittleEndian.Uint32(dataLengthBuf))
if dataLength <= 0 || ServerMaxMessageSize < dataLength {
return nil, errors.New("[pivot] invalid data length")
}
dataBuf := make([]byte, dataLength) // ← Allocates up to ~2 GiB
// ... data is read into buffer ...
// Envelope signature verification happens AFTER allocation and read:
if !ed25519.Verify(pubKey, dataBuf, signature) {
return nil, errors.New("[mtls] invalid signature")
}
Key issues:
- Excessive limit:
ServerMaxMessageSizeis set to(2 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024) - 1≈ 2 GiB, far exceeding any legitimate protobuf envelope (large payloads like screenshots and downloads are chunked at the RPC layer). - Allocation before envelope verification: While the TLS handshake validates the client certificate, the per-envelope ed25519 signature check (
ed25519.Verify) occurs after the buffer allocation andio.ReadFull. Once the TLS connection is established, no further cryptographic proof is needed to trigger the allocation. - Yamux amplification: The yamux session allows up to
mtlsYamuxMaxConcurrentStreams = 128concurrent streams. Each stream processessocketReadEnvelopeindependently, so a single connection can trigger 128 parallel ~2 GiB allocations. - Implant-side exposure: The implant-side readers (ReadEnvelope in mTLS/WireGuard, read() in pivots) have no upper-bound check at all — they accept any
dataLength > 0.
The same pattern exists in socketWGReadEnvelope for the WireGuard transport.
Note: The same unbounded allocation pattern is also present in implant-side readers, though it poses no immediate risk to the server 1, 2, 3, 4.
Proof of Concept
PoC Links: mtls_poc.go or Gist Version
1. Establish mTLS connection: Complete a valid TLS 1.3 handshake presenting a valid implant client certificate.
2. Negotiate yamux: Send the MUX/1 preface to enter multiplexed stream mode.
3. Open concurrent streams: Open multiple yamux streams (up to 128).
4. Send malicious length prefix: On each stream, send a 74-byte raw signature buffer followed by a 4-byte length prefix claiming 0x7FFFFFFF (2,147,483,647 bytes ≈ 2 GiB). No actual data needs to follow.
5. Result: Each stream triggers a make([]byte, 0x7FFFFFFF) allocation. With 128 concurrent streams, the server process attempts to allocate up to ~256 GiB of memory, causing the OS OOM killer to terminate the process.
Impact
- Server availability: The Sliver server process is killed. Active implant sessions are disrupted until the operator manually restarts the server.
- Host degradation: On hosts with swap enabled, the OOM event may cause swap thrashing and degrade other services sharing the same host before the process is killed.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/bishopfox/sliver"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.7.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-32941"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770",
"CWE-789"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-17T17:48:45Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-20T04:16:49Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "# Summary\nA Remote OOM (Out-of-Memory) vulnerability exists in the Sliver C2 server\u0027s mTLS and WireGuard C2 transport layer. The\u00a0`socketReadEnvelope`\u00a0and `socketWGReadEnvelope`\u00a0functions trust an attacker-controlled 4-byte length prefix to allocate memory, with\u00a0`ServerMaxMessageSize`\u00a0allowing single allocations of up to\u00a0**~2 GiB**. A compromised implant or an attacker with valid credentials can exploit this by sending fabricated length prefixes over concurrent yamux streams (up to 128 per connection), forcing the server to attempt allocating\u00a0**~256 GiB**\u00a0of memory and triggering an OS OOM kill. This crashes the Sliver server, disrupts all active implant sessions, and may degrade or kill other processes sharing the same host. The same pattern also affects all implant-side readers, which have\u00a0**no**\u00a0upper-bound check at all.\n\n---\n# Root Cause Analysis\n\nThe C2 envelope framing protocol uses a 4-byte little-endian length prefix to delimit protobuf messages on the wire:\n\n```\n[raw_signature (74 bytes)] [uint32 length] [protobuf data]\n```\n\nIn [socketReadEnvelope](https://github.com/BishopFox/sliver/blob/master/server/c2/mtls.go#L337-L392), after reading the length prefix, the server immediately allocates a buffer of the attacker-specified size:\n\n```go\n// server/c2/mtls.go\nconst ServerMaxMessageSize = (2 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024) - 1 // ~2 GiB\n\ndataLength := int(binary.LittleEndian.Uint32(dataLengthBuf))\nif dataLength \u003c= 0 || ServerMaxMessageSize \u003c dataLength {\n return nil, errors.New(\"[pivot] invalid data length\")\n}\ndataBuf := make([]byte, dataLength) // \u2190 Allocates up to ~2 GiB\n\n// ... data is read into buffer ...\n\n// Envelope signature verification happens AFTER allocation and read:\nif !ed25519.Verify(pubKey, dataBuf, signature) {\n return nil, errors.New(\"[mtls] invalid signature\")\n}\n```\n\n**Key issues:**\n\n1. **Excessive limit**: `ServerMaxMessageSize` is set to `(2 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024) - 1` \u2248 **2 GiB**, far exceeding any legitimate protobuf envelope (large payloads like screenshots and downloads are chunked at the RPC layer).\n2. **Allocation before envelope verification**: While the TLS handshake validates the client certificate, the per-envelope ed25519 signature check (`ed25519.Verify`) occurs **after** the buffer allocation and `io.ReadFull`. Once the TLS connection is established, no further cryptographic proof is needed to trigger the allocation.\n3. **Yamux amplification**: The yamux session allows up to `mtlsYamuxMaxConcurrentStreams = 128` concurrent streams. Each stream processes `socketReadEnvelope` independently, so a single connection can trigger **128 parallel ~2 GiB allocations**.\n4. **Implant-side exposure**: The implant-side readers ([ReadEnvelope](https://github.com/BishopFox/sliver/blob/master/implant/sliver/transports/mtls/mtls.go#L184) in mTLS/WireGuard, [read()](https://github.com/BishopFox/sliver/blob/master/implant/sliver/pivots/pivots.go#L478) in pivots) have **no upper-bound check at all** \u2014 they accept any `dataLength \u003e 0`.\n\nThe same pattern exists in [socketWGReadEnvelope](https://github.com/BishopFox/sliver/blob/master/server/c2/wireguard.go#L428-L487) for the WireGuard transport.\n\n\n_Note: The same unbounded allocation pattern is also present in implant-side readers, though it poses no immediate risk to the server [1](https://github.com/BishopFox/sliver/blob/master/implant/sliver/transports/mtls/mtls.go#L185), [2](https://github.com/BishopFox/sliver/blob/master/implant/sliver/transports/wireguard/wireguard.go#L178), [3](https://github.com/BishopFox/sliver/blob/master/implant/sliver/pivots/pivots.go), [4](https://github.com/BishopFox/sliver/blob/master/implant/sliver/transports/pivotclients/pivotclient.go)._\n\n\n---\n\n# Proof of Concept\nPoC Links: [mtls_poc.go](https://github.com/skoveit/Sliver-OOM-DoS-PoC/) or [Gist Version](https://gist.github.com/skoveit/08f3ec08ffbf3deeff189a83ef827dcf)\n1. **Establish mTLS connection**: Complete a valid TLS 1.3 handshake presenting a valid implant client certificate.\n2. **Negotiate yamux**: Send the `MUX/1` preface to enter multiplexed stream mode.\n3. **Open concurrent streams**: Open multiple yamux streams (up to 128).\n4. **Send malicious length prefix**: On each stream, send a 74-byte raw signature buffer followed by a 4-byte length prefix claiming `0x7FFFFFFF` (2,147,483,647 bytes \u2248 2 GiB). No actual data needs to follow.\n5. **Result**: Each stream triggers a `make([]byte, 0x7FFFFFFF)` allocation. With 128 concurrent streams, the server process attempts to allocate **up to ~256 GiB** of memory, causing the OS OOM killer to terminate the process.\n\n# Impact\n- **Server availability**: The Sliver server process is killed. Active implant sessions are disrupted until the operator manually restarts the server.\n- **Host degradation**: On hosts with swap enabled, the OOM event may cause swap thrashing and degrade other services sharing the same host before the process is killed.",
"id": "GHSA-97vp-pwqj-46qc",
"modified": "2026-03-30T14:04:02Z",
"published": "2026-03-17T17:48:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/BishopFox/sliver/security/advisories/GHSA-97vp-pwqj-46qc"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32941"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/skoveit/08f3ec08ffbf3deeff189a83ef827dcf"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/BishopFox/sliver"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Sliver Vulnerable to Authenticated OOM via Memory Exhaustion in mTLS/WireGuard Transports"
}
GHSA-983G-85MV-CF26
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-08 00:00 – Updated: 2022-07-15 00:00An issue was discovered in glFTPd 2.11a that allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via exceeding the connection limit.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-31645"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-07T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in glFTPd 2.11a that allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via exceeding the connection limit.",
"id": "GHSA-983g-85mv-cf26",
"modified": "2022-07-15T00:00:16Z",
"published": "2022-07-08T00:00:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-31645"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://glftpd.io"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/49773"
}
],
"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-989C-M532-P2HV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-13 09:30 – Updated: 2025-06-13 21:57Worker process denial of service through file read operation. .A vulnerability exists in the Master's “pub_ret” method which is exposed to all minions. The un-sanitized input value “jid” is used to construct a path which is then opened for reading. An attacker could exploit this vulnerabilities by attempting to read from a filename that will not return any data, e.g. by targeting a pipe node on the proc file system.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "salt"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3007.0rc1"
},
{
"fixed": "3007.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "salt"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3006.0rc1"
},
{
"fixed": "3006.12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-22242"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-06-13T21:57:41Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-13T07:15:21Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Worker process denial of service through file read operation. .A vulnerability exists in the Master\u0027s \u201cpub_ret\u201d method which is exposed to all minions. The un-sanitized input value \u201cjid\u201d is used to construct a path which is then opened for reading. An attacker could exploit this vulnerabilities by attempting to read from a filename that will not return any data, e.g. by targeting a pipe node on the proc file system.",
"id": "GHSA-989c-m532-p2hv",
"modified": "2025-06-13T21:57:41Z",
"published": "2025-06-13T09:30:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-22242"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/saltstack/salt/commit/e39116fb87bf4db9bcb9aade8258c66df87d41fe"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.saltproject.io/en/3006/topics/releases/3006.12.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.saltproject.io/en/3007/topics/releases/3007.4.html"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/saltstack/salt"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Salt\u0027s worker process vulnerable to denial of service through file read operation"
}
GHSA-98HM-92WR-4835
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-08 18:32 – Updated: 2026-09-08 18:32An uncontrolled resource consumption weakness exists in the request-handling path of the MongoDB sharded-cluster router process. A client that has network access to a router port and has not authenticated can supply connection-monitoring parameters that cause the server to expend CPU resources without any rate limiting, degrading or denying service to legitimate clients. No authentication, elevated privileges, or user interaction is required. Only availability is affected; data confidentiality and integrity are not impacted.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-82075"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-08T17:18:36Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An uncontrolled resource consumption weakness exists in the request-handling path of the MongoDB sharded-cluster router process. A client that has network access to a router port and has not authenticated can supply connection-monitoring parameters that cause the server to expend CPU resources without any rate limiting, degrading or denying service to legitimate clients. No authentication, elevated privileges, or user interaction is required. Only availability is affected; data confidentiality and integrity are not impacted.",
"id": "GHSA-98hm-92wr-4835",
"modified": "2026-09-08T18:32:00Z",
"published": "2026-09-08T18:32:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-82075"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-132650"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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:
- 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.
- 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.
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.