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
4410 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-G349-HGX7-9CJ9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-26 09:31 – Updated: 2025-09-26 09:31An issue was discovered in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions before 18.2.7, 18.3 before 18.3.3, and 18.4 before 18.4.1 that allows unauthenticated users to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) condition while uploading specifically crafted large JSON files.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-10858"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-26T09:15:30Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions before 18.2.7, 18.3 before 18.3.3, and 18.4 before 18.4.1 that allows unauthenticated users to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) condition while uploading specifically crafted large JSON files.",
"id": "GHSA-g349-hgx7-9cj9",
"modified": "2025-09-26T09:31:11Z",
"published": "2025-09-26T09:31:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-10858"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/570034"
}
],
"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-G357-X5C3-C72P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-24 14:05 – Updated: 2026-07-24 14:05pop filter bypasses memoryLimit accounting that its array-filter siblings enforce
CWE: CWE-770 (Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling) — sibling class of GHSA-8xx9-69p8-7jp3 and GHSA-2546-xv4c-mc8g, applied to memoryLimit instead of renderLimit
Summary
The pop array filter at src/filters/array.ts:91-95 allocates a full clone of its input array via [...toArray(v)] but does not call this.context.memoryLimit.use(...) the way every other array-clone filter in the same file does (shift, unshift, compact, concat, reverse, sample, slice, map, sortBy, where, group_by, uniq). This silently disables the memoryLimit budget for {{ huge_array | pop }}, letting a template render allocate an O(N) clone of an attacker-influenced array regardless of how strictly memoryLimit is set.
Affected
- liquidjs ≥ all versions that ship the current
popfilter implementation (verified10.27.0, HEADa8fd734b5) - Deployments where any template uses
{{ arr | pop }}on an array whose length is influenced by untrusted input (typical multi-tenant context arrays: orders, log lines, catalog entries, user lists, etc.)
Vulnerability details
Code
src/filters/array.ts:91-95:
export function pop<T> (v: T[]): T[] {
const clone = [...toArray(v)] // O(N) allocation — not charged to memoryLimit
clone.pop()
return clone
}
Note: the function signature does not even declare this: FilterImpl, so it has no typed access to this.context.memoryLimit at the type level — a visual tell that the author skipped the limit-accounting boilerplate the surrounding filters use.
Compare with shift (src/filters/array.ts:97-103), which is functionally identical except for the array-end operated on:
export function shift<T> (this: FilterImpl, v: T[]): T[] {
const array = toArray(v)
this.context.memoryLimit.use(array.length) // ← guard present
const clone = [...array]
clone.shift()
return clone
}
And unshift, compact, concat, reverse, sample, slice, map, sortBy, where, group_by, uniq — all of which also charge memoryLimit.use(array.length) (or lhs.length + rhs.length etc.) before allocating their working buffer.
The asymmetry confirms pop is an accidental omission, not by design.
Why the bypass matters
memoryLimit is the documented control for bounding the memory a single render() call may allocate (docs/source/tutorials/dos.md). Every array-output filter in src/filters/array.ts other than pop deducts its working set from the limit, so a render that does {{ huge | shift }} with memoryLimit: 100 and huge.length === 5_000_000 correctly throws memory alloc limit exceeded. The identical {{ huge | pop }} does not throw — the allocation proceeds, and the only ceiling is the Node process's heap.
Proof of concept
const { Liquid } = require('liquidjs');
const l = new Liquid({ memoryLimit: 100 }); // 100-unit budget
const huge = Array(5_000_000).fill('x'); // 5M-element context array
(async () => {
try { await l.parseAndRender('{{ a | shift | size }}', { a: huge }); }
catch (e) { console.log('shift: ' + e.message); } // expected: memory alloc limit exceeded
try { await l.parseAndRender('{{ a | unshift: 0 | size }}', { a: huge }); }
catch (e) { console.log('unshift: ' + e.message); } // expected: memory alloc limit exceeded
const out = await l.parseAndRender('{{ a | pop | size }}', { a: huge });
console.log('pop: OK, size=' + out); // size=4999999 — allocation succeeded
})();
Observed (against dist/liquid.node.js at a8fd734b5):
shift: memory alloc limit exceeded, line:1, col:1
unshift: memory alloc limit exceeded, line:1, col:1
pop: OK, size=4999999
Impact
memoryLimitdoes not boundpopallocations. Any template that can reach{{ <untrusted-sized array> | pop }}allocates an O(N) clone outside the budget.- Realistic attack surface: when a server passes an attacker-influenced large array to the template context (search results, paginated lists, batch-export pages) and the template uses
| popanywhere on it, a single render can allocate hundreds of MB of array slots that the operator believedmemoryLimithad ruled out. - Concurrent amplification: N parallel requests each allocate their own unguarded clone — the practical ceiling is the Node process heap, after which the host runs
oom-kill. This is the same outcome the renderLimit-empty-body advisories (GHSA-8xx9-69p8-7jp3 / GHSA-2546-xv4c-mc8g) prevented for CPU; this report prevents it for memory.
Severity is configuration-dependent (requires memoryLimit to be set, plus a template that uses pop, plus attacker-influenced array length). For deployments that rely on memoryLimit as a DoS guard, this is a real bypass of that guard.
Workaround for users
Until a fix lands, deployments relying on memoryLimit should either:
- Avoid
| popin templates whose inputs include untrusted-length arrays. Use| slice: 0, arr.size | minus: 1or equivalent guarded alternatives. - Register a wrapping
popfilter that does the accounting:
js
liquid.registerFilter('pop', function (v) {
const arr = Array.from(v ?? []);
this.context.memoryLimit.use(arr.length);
arr.pop();
return arr;
});
Suggested fix
One-line addition mirroring shift:
export function pop<T> (this: FilterImpl, v: T[]): T[] {
const array = toArray(v)
this.context.memoryLimit.use(array.length) // ← add this line, and add `this: FilterImpl`
const clone = [...array]
clone.pop()
return clone
}
No API or behavior change for callers within budget; rejects out-of-budget calls with the standard memory alloc limit exceeded exception the sibling filters already throw.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 10.27.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "liquidjs"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "10.27.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-55575"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-24T14:05:20Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-08T20:16:53Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "# `pop` filter bypasses `memoryLimit` accounting that its array-filter siblings enforce\n\n**CWE**: CWE-770 (Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling) \u2014 sibling class of GHSA-8xx9-69p8-7jp3 and GHSA-2546-xv4c-mc8g, applied to `memoryLimit` instead of `renderLimit`\n\n## Summary\n\nThe `pop` array filter at `src/filters/array.ts:91-95` allocates a full clone of its input array via `[...toArray(v)]` but does **not** call `this.context.memoryLimit.use(...)` the way every other array-clone filter in the same file does (`shift`, `unshift`, `compact`, `concat`, `reverse`, `sample`, `slice`, `map`, `sortBy`, `where`, `group_by`, `uniq`). This silently disables the `memoryLimit` budget for `{{ huge_array | pop }}`, letting a template render allocate an O(N) clone of an attacker-influenced array regardless of how strictly `memoryLimit` is set.\n\n## Affected\n\n- liquidjs \u2265 all versions that ship the current `pop` filter implementation (verified `10.27.0`, HEAD `a8fd734b5`)\n- Deployments where any template uses `{{ arr | pop }}` on an array whose length is influenced by untrusted input (typical multi-tenant context arrays: orders, log lines, catalog entries, user lists, etc.)\n\n## Vulnerability details\n\n### Code\n\n`src/filters/array.ts:91-95`:\n\n```ts\nexport function pop\u003cT\u003e (v: T[]): T[] {\n const clone = [...toArray(v)] // O(N) allocation \u2014 not charged to memoryLimit\n clone.pop()\n return clone\n}\n```\n\nNote: the function signature does not even declare `this: FilterImpl`, so it has no typed access to `this.context.memoryLimit` at the type level \u2014 a visual tell that the author skipped the limit-accounting boilerplate the surrounding filters use.\n\nCompare with `shift` (`src/filters/array.ts:97-103`), which is functionally identical except for the array-end operated on:\n\n```ts\nexport function shift\u003cT\u003e (this: FilterImpl, v: T[]): T[] {\n const array = toArray(v)\n this.context.memoryLimit.use(array.length) // \u2190 guard present\n const clone = [...array]\n clone.shift()\n return clone\n}\n```\n\nAnd `unshift`, `compact`, `concat`, `reverse`, `sample`, `slice`, `map`, `sortBy`, `where`, `group_by`, `uniq` \u2014 all of which also charge `memoryLimit.use(array.length)` (or `lhs.length + rhs.length` etc.) before allocating their working buffer.\n\nThe asymmetry confirms `pop` is an accidental omission, not by design.\n\n### Why the bypass matters\n\n`memoryLimit` is the documented control for bounding the memory a single `render()` call may allocate (`docs/source/tutorials/dos.md`). Every array-output filter in `src/filters/array.ts` other than `pop` deducts its working set from the limit, so a render that does `{{ huge | shift }}` with `memoryLimit: 100` and `huge.length === 5_000_000` correctly throws `memory alloc limit exceeded`. The identical `{{ huge | pop }}` does **not** throw \u2014 the allocation proceeds, and the only ceiling is the Node process\u0027s heap.\n\n## Proof of concept\n\n```js\nconst { Liquid } = require(\u0027liquidjs\u0027);\n\nconst l = new Liquid({ memoryLimit: 100 }); // 100-unit budget\nconst huge = Array(5_000_000).fill(\u0027x\u0027); // 5M-element context array\n\n(async () =\u003e {\n try { await l.parseAndRender(\u0027{{ a | shift | size }}\u0027, { a: huge }); }\n catch (e) { console.log(\u0027shift: \u0027 + e.message); } // expected: memory alloc limit exceeded\n\n try { await l.parseAndRender(\u0027{{ a | unshift: 0 | size }}\u0027, { a: huge }); }\n catch (e) { console.log(\u0027unshift: \u0027 + e.message); } // expected: memory alloc limit exceeded\n\n const out = await l.parseAndRender(\u0027{{ a | pop | size }}\u0027, { a: huge });\n console.log(\u0027pop: OK, size=\u0027 + out); // size=4999999 \u2014 allocation succeeded\n})();\n```\n\nObserved (against `dist/liquid.node.js` at `a8fd734b5`):\n\n```\nshift: memory alloc limit exceeded, line:1, col:1\nunshift: memory alloc limit exceeded, line:1, col:1\npop: OK, size=4999999\n```\n\n## Impact\n\n- **`memoryLimit` does not bound `pop` allocations.** Any template that can reach `{{ \u003cuntrusted-sized array\u003e | pop }}` allocates an O(N) clone outside the budget.\n- **Realistic attack surface**: when a server passes an attacker-influenced large array to the template context (search results, paginated lists, batch-export pages) and the template uses `| pop` anywhere on it, a single render can allocate hundreds of MB of array slots that the operator believed `memoryLimit` had ruled out.\n- **Concurrent amplification**: N parallel requests each allocate their own unguarded clone \u2014 the practical ceiling is the Node process heap, after which the host runs `oom-kill`. This is the same outcome the renderLimit-empty-body advisories (GHSA-8xx9-69p8-7jp3 / GHSA-2546-xv4c-mc8g) prevented for CPU; this report prevents it for memory.\n\nSeverity is configuration-dependent (requires `memoryLimit` to be set, plus a template that uses `pop`, plus attacker-influenced array length). For deployments that rely on `memoryLimit` as a DoS guard, this is a real bypass of that guard.\n\n## Workaround for users\n\nUntil a fix lands, deployments relying on `memoryLimit` should either:\n\n- Avoid `| pop` in templates whose inputs include untrusted-length arrays. Use `| slice: 0, arr.size | minus: 1` or equivalent guarded alternatives.\n- Register a wrapping `pop` filter that does the accounting:\n\n ```js\n liquid.registerFilter(\u0027pop\u0027, function (v) {\n const arr = Array.from(v ?? []);\n this.context.memoryLimit.use(arr.length);\n arr.pop();\n return arr;\n });\n ```\n\n## Suggested fix\n\nOne-line addition mirroring `shift`:\n\n```ts\nexport function pop\u003cT\u003e (this: FilterImpl, v: T[]): T[] {\n const array = toArray(v)\n this.context.memoryLimit.use(array.length) // \u2190 add this line, and add `this: FilterImpl`\n const clone = [...array]\n clone.pop()\n return clone\n}\n```\n\nNo API or behavior change for callers within budget; rejects out-of-budget calls with the standard `memory alloc limit exceeded` exception the sibling filters already throw.",
"id": "GHSA-g357-x5c3-c72p",
"modified": "2026-07-24T14:05:20Z",
"published": "2026-07-24T14:05:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/harttle/liquidjs/security/advisories/GHSA-g357-x5c3-c72p"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-55575"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/harttle/liquidjs/pull/907"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/harttle/liquidjs/commit/8a0c74a7fcb1671aa1dcb71ec82ba0602dc90d04"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/harttle/liquidjs"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/harttle/liquidjs/releases/tag/v10.27.1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "LiquidJS: `pop` filter bypasses `memoryLimit` accounting that its array-filter siblings enforce"
}
GHSA-G35J-M5XG-VH3Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-24 20:49 – Updated: 2026-07-24 20:49Summary
An attacker can cause excessive memory allocation in webtransport-go by sending an unknown WebTransport capsule with a large payload. The implementation skips unknown capsules by reading the entire capsule body into memory, instead of draining it without retaining the data. This can lead to memory exhaustion.
Impact
A misbehaving or malicious peer can cause a denial-of-service (DoS) attack against webtransport-go clients or servers by triggering excessive memory allocation, potentially leading to crashes or resource exhaustion.
Details
WebTransport sessions use capsules on the HTTP/3 request stream. Unknown capsule types are ignored, but the capsule body still needs to be consumed before the next capsule can be parsed.
webtransport-go used io.ReadAll when skipping unknown capsules. Since the capsule reader is only limited by the capsule's declared length, a peer could send a large unknown capsule and cause the receiver to allocate memory for the full capsule body.
QUIC flow control limits buffered data, but it does not bound total allocation here, since reading the stream advances the flow control window while retaining the received bytes in memory.
The Fix
webtransport-go now drains unknown capsules to io.Discard instead of buffering them. This consumes the capsule body so parsing can continue, without retaining the payload in memory.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.11.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/quic-go/webtransport-go"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.11.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-57497"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-24T20:49:28Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nAn attacker can cause excessive memory allocation in webtransport-go by sending an unknown WebTransport capsule with a large payload. The implementation skips unknown capsules by reading the entire capsule body into memory, instead of draining it without retaining the data. This can lead to memory exhaustion.\n\n## Impact\n\nA misbehaving or malicious peer can cause a denial-of-service (DoS) attack against webtransport-go clients or servers by triggering excessive memory allocation, potentially leading to crashes or resource exhaustion.\n\n## Details\n\nWebTransport sessions use capsules on the HTTP/3 request stream. Unknown capsule types are ignored, but the capsule body still needs to be consumed before the next capsule can be parsed.\n\nwebtransport-go used `io.ReadAll` when skipping unknown capsules. Since the capsule reader is only limited by the capsule\u0027s declared length, a peer could send a large unknown capsule and cause the receiver to allocate memory for the full capsule body.\n\nQUIC flow control limits buffered data, but it does not bound total allocation here, since reading the stream advances the flow control window while retaining the received bytes in memory.\n\n## The Fix\n\nwebtransport-go now drains unknown capsules to `io.Discard` instead of buffering them. This consumes the capsule body so parsing can continue, without retaining the payload in memory.",
"id": "GHSA-g35j-m5xg-vh3q",
"modified": "2026-07-24T20:49:28Z",
"published": "2026-07-24T20:49:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/webtransport-go/security/advisories/GHSA-g35j-m5xg-vh3q"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/webtransport-go/pull/290"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/webtransport-go/commit/3aecd11736579530ff067651c30a543eb0b4b8c4"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/webtransport-go"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/quic-go/webtransport-go/releases/tag/v0.11.1"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "webtransport-go: Memory Exhaustion Attack due to Buffering of Unknown Capsules"
}
GHSA-G37R-X966-X536
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-13 21:31 – Updated: 2026-01-13 21:31Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) in Kibana Fleet can lead to Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130) via a specially crafted bulk retrieval request. This requires an attacker to have low-level privileges equivalent to the viewer role, which grants read access to agent policies. The crafted request can cause the application to perform redundant database retrieval operations that immediately consume memory until the server crashes and becomes unavailable to all users.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-0531"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-13T21:15:50Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) in Kibana Fleet can lead to Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130) via a specially crafted bulk retrieval request. This requires an attacker to have low-level privileges equivalent to the viewer role, which grants read access to agent policies. The crafted request can cause the application to perform redundant database retrieval operations that immediately consume memory until the server crashes and becomes unavailable to all users.",
"id": "GHSA-g37r-x966-x536",
"modified": "2026-01-13T21:31:46Z",
"published": "2026-01-13T21:31:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-0531"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://discuss.elastic.co/t/kibana-8-19-10-9-1-10-9-2-4-security-update-esa-2026-04/384522"
}
],
"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-G3JR-2974-6X9V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-28 03:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 03:43IBM Counter Fraud Management for Safer Payments 6.1.0.00, 6.2.0.00, 6.3.0.00 through 6.3.1.03, 6.4.0.00 through 6.4.2.02 and 6.5.0.00 does not properly allocate resources without limits or throttling which could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service. IBM X-Force ID: 249190.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-27556"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-04-28T01:15:06Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "IBM Counter Fraud Management for Safer Payments 6.1.0.00, 6.2.0.00, 6.3.0.00 through 6.3.1.03, 6.4.0.00 through 6.4.2.02 and 6.5.0.00 does not properly allocate resources without limits or throttling which could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service. IBM X-Force ID: 249190.",
"id": "GHSA-g3jr-2974-6x9v",
"modified": "2024-04-04T03:43:19Z",
"published": "2023-04-28T03:30:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-27556"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/249190"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6985601"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6985601"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6985601?_ga=2.43419744.496803297.1683030163-785517468.1677620719"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G3PC-2885-CJ35
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-10 06:30 – Updated: 2026-02-10 06:30Due to an uncontrolled resource consumption (Denial of Service) vulnerability, an authenticated attacker with regular user privileges and network access can repeatedly invoke a remote-enabled function module with an excessively large loop-control parameter. This triggers prolonged loop execution that consumes excessive system resources, potentially rendering the system unavailable. Successful exploitation results in a denial-of-service condition that impacts availability, while confidentiality and integrity remain unaffected.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-23689"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-606",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-10T04:16:03Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Due to an uncontrolled resource consumption (Denial of Service) vulnerability, an authenticated attacker with regular user privileges and network access can repeatedly invoke a remote-enabled function module with an excessively large loop-control parameter. This triggers prolonged loop execution that consumes excessive system resources, potentially rendering the system unavailable. Successful exploitation results in a denial-of-service condition that impacts availability, while confidentiality and integrity remain unaffected.",
"id": "GHSA-g3pc-2885-cj35",
"modified": "2026-02-10T06:30:38Z",
"published": "2026-02-10T06:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-23689"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://me.sap.com/notes/3703092"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://url.sap/sapsecuritypatchday"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G3PR-3P32-FP23
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-09 06:31 – Updated: 2026-09-11 15:32In Micrometer, it is possible for a user to provide specially crafted HTTP requests that may cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition.
Affected versions: micrometer-core 1.16.0 through 1.16.5; 1.15.0 through 1.15.11; 1.14.0 through 1.14.15; 1.13.0 through 1.13.18; 1.9.0 through 1.9.17. micrometer-jetty11 1.16.0 through 1.16.5; 1.15.0 through 1.15.11; 1.14.0 through 1.14.15; 1.13.0 through 1.13.18. micrometer-jetty12 1.16.0 through 1.16.5; 1.15.0 through 1.15.11; 1.14.0 through 1.14.15; 1.13.0 through 1.13.18.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.16.5"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.micrometer:micrometer-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.16.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.16.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.15.11"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.micrometer:micrometer-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.15.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.15.12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.micrometer:micrometer-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.14.0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.14.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.micrometer:micrometer-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.10.0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.13.15"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.micrometer:micrometer-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.9.17"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.16.5"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.micrometer:micrometer-jetty12"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.16.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.16.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.15.11"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.micrometer:micrometer-jetty12"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.15.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.15.12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.micrometer:micrometer-jetty12"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.14.0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.14.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.micrometer:micrometer-jetty12"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.13.15"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.16.5"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.micrometer:micrometer-jetty11"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.16.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.16.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.15.11"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.micrometer:micrometer-jetty11"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.15.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.15.12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.micrometer:micrometer-jetty11"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.14.0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.14.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.micrometer:micrometer-jetty11"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.13.15"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-40984"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-06T19:10:08Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-09T05:16:34Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In Micrometer, it is possible for a user to provide specially crafted HTTP requests that may cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition.\n\nAffected versions:\nmicrometer-core 1.16.0 through 1.16.5; 1.15.0 through 1.15.11; 1.14.0 through 1.14.15; 1.13.0 through 1.13.18; 1.9.0 through 1.9.17.\nmicrometer-jetty11 1.16.0 through 1.16.5; 1.15.0 through 1.15.11; 1.14.0 through 1.14.15; 1.13.0 through 1.13.18.\nmicrometer-jetty12 1.16.0 through 1.16.5; 1.15.0 through 1.15.11; 1.14.0 through 1.14.15; 1.13.0 through 1.13.18.",
"id": "GHSA-g3pr-3p32-fp23",
"modified": "2026-09-11T15:32:18Z",
"published": "2026-06-09T06:31:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-40984"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer/commit/36da131525228188a36779a28471a76c79213dd4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36839"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:37390"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:41951"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:50848"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:50849"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54435"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:62260"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:66488"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:66545"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-40984"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2486716"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-40984.json"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://spring.io/security/cve-2026-40984"
}
],
"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": "Micrometer HTTP server instrumentations DoS"
}
GHSA-G3VX-J9RX-JFM5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-15 09:30 – Updated: 2026-10-20 21:30In Eclipse Vert.x versions [4.0.0, 4.5.34] or [5.0.0,5.0.12] or [5.1.0,5.1.9] or [5.2.0, 5.2.0], the Eclipse Vert.x MQTT (vertx-mqtt) MqttClient stores every inbound QoS 2 PUBLISH message received from the broker in an internal map (qos2inbound) while awaiting the corresponding PUBREL packet to complete the QoS 2 handshake. This map has no size limit; the maxInflightQueue option is enforced only on the outbound publish path and does not constrain inbound message retention.
A malicious or compromised MQTT broker can exploit this by sending QoS 2 PUBLISH messages with distinct packet identifiers and withholding the PUBREL responses. Each incomplete handshake causes the client to retain the full publish message (topic, payload, and metadata) indefinitely, leading to unbounded memory growth in the Vert.x process. This can degrade the MQTT-consuming application or cause out-of-memory termination.
The impacted component is io.vertx:vertx-mqtt.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-102464"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-15T09:17:15Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In Eclipse Vert.x versions [4.0.0, 4.5.34] or [5.0.0,5.0.12] or [5.1.0,5.1.9] or [5.2.0, 5.2.0], the Eclipse Vert.x MQTT (vertx-mqtt) MqttClient stores every inbound QoS 2 PUBLISH message received from the broker in an internal map (qos2inbound) while awaiting the corresponding PUBREL packet to complete the QoS 2 handshake. This map has no size limit; the maxInflightQueue option is enforced only on the outbound publish path and does not constrain inbound message retention.\n\n\n\nA malicious or compromised MQTT broker can exploit this by sending QoS 2 PUBLISH messages with distinct packet identifiers and withholding the PUBREL responses. Each incomplete handshake causes the client to retain the full publish message (topic, payload, and metadata) indefinitely, leading to unbounded memory growth in the Vert.x process. This can degrade the MQTT-consuming application or cause out-of-memory termination.\n\n\n\nThe impacted component is io.vertx:vertx-mqtt.",
"id": "GHSA-g3vx-j9rx-jfm5",
"modified": "2026-10-20T21:30:38Z",
"published": "2026-10-15T09:30:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vert-x3/vertx-mqtt/security/advisories/GHSA-46xj-5735-6qrp"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-102464"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/cve-assignment/-/work_items/344"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/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-G3WJ-WQF3-65V6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-26 15:31 – Updated: 2026-09-26 15:31Netty (io.netty:netty-codec-http) contains an unbounded per-connection queue growth flaw in HttpServerCodec. The codec tracks the HTTP method of each still-unanswered pipelined request; the first 32 entries are bit-packed into a single long, but every additional entry is appended to methodOverflowQueue, an ArrayDeque with no size limit and no rejection path. A remote, unauthenticated attacker who pipelines HTTP/1.1 requests on a single connection while withholding reads on their own end (preventing responses from being flushed) can grow this queue without bound, causing unbounded heap growth and denial of service. Affected versions are 4.2.0.Final through 4.2.17.Final and all releases up to and including 4.1.137.Final; the issue is fixed in 4.2.18.Final and 4.1.138.Final.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-100656"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-26T14:16:48Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Netty (io.netty:netty-codec-http) contains an unbounded per-connection queue growth flaw in HttpServerCodec. The codec tracks the HTTP method of each still-unanswered pipelined request; the first 32 entries are bit-packed into a single long, but every additional entry is appended to methodOverflowQueue, an ArrayDeque with no size limit and no rejection path. A remote, unauthenticated attacker who pipelines HTTP/1.1 requests on a single connection while withholding reads on their own end (preventing responses from being flushed) can grow this queue without bound, causing unbounded heap growth and denial of service. Affected versions are 4.2.0.Final through 4.2.17.Final and all releases up to and including 4.1.137.Final; the issue is fixed in 4.2.18.Final and 4.1.138.Final.",
"id": "GHSA-g3wj-wqf3-65v6",
"modified": "2026-09-26T15:31:18Z",
"published": "2026-09-26T15:31:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories/GHSA-pvjx-v7vp-62vq"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-100656"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/netty-httpservercodec-unbounded-queue-growth-via-http-1.1-pipelining"
}
],
"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-G48R-38GH-835C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-13 21:36 – Updated: 2026-08-13 21:36Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A specially crafted, malformed payload submitted to a Kibana visualization feature by an authenticated user holding only low-privileged access is not correctly validated before use. Processing the request causes unbounded memory growth in the Kibana process, which is terminated by the host once available memory is exhausted. Kibana then becomes unavailable to all users until the service is restarted.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-72659"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-13T20:17:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A specially crafted, malformed payload submitted to a Kibana visualization feature by an authenticated user holding only low-privileged access is not correctly validated before use. Processing the request causes unbounded memory growth in the Kibana process, which is terminated by the host once available memory is exhausted. Kibana then becomes unavailable to all users until the service is restarted.",
"id": "GHSA-g48r-38gh-835c",
"modified": "2026-08-13T21:36:09Z",
"published": "2026-08-13T21:36:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72659"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://discuss.elastic.co/t/kibana-8-19-20-9-4-5-security-update-esa-2026-100/389519"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.