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-GX5V-XP9W-J4CG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-12 18:30 – Updated: 2026-05-18 20:26Versions Affected: Apache Tomcat 11.0.0-M1 to 11.0.21 Apache Tomcat 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.54 Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.117 Older, unsupported versions may also be affected
Description: No limit was enforced on the request body for WebDAV LOCK or PROPFIND requests which were available to unauthenticated users.
Mitigation: Users of the affected versions should apply one of the following mitigations: - Upgrade to Apache Tomcat 11.0.22 or later - Upgrade to Apache Tomcat 10.1.55 or later - Upgrade to Apache Tomcat 9.0.118 or later
Credit: This issue was identified by Dariusz Gońda
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat.embed:tomcat-embed-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.0.118"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat.embed:tomcat-embed-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "10.1.0-M1"
},
{
"fixed": "10.1.55"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat.embed:tomcat-embed-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "11.0.0-M1"
},
{
"fixed": "11.0.22"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat:tomcat"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.0.118"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat:tomcat"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "10.1.0-M1"
},
{
"fixed": "10.1.55"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat:tomcat"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "11.0.0-M1"
},
{
"fixed": "11.0.22"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat:tomcat-catalina"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.0.118"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat:tomcat-catalina"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "10.1.0-M1"
},
{
"fixed": "10.1.55"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat:tomcat-catalina"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "11.0.0-M1"
},
{
"fixed": "11.0.22"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-41284"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-18T20:26:58Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-12T16:16:15Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Versions Affected:\nApache Tomcat 11.0.0-M1 to 11.0.21\nApache Tomcat 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.54\nApache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.117\nOlder, unsupported versions may also be affected\n\nDescription:\nNo limit was enforced on the request body for WebDAV LOCK or PROPFIND\nrequests which were available to unauthenticated users.\n\nMitigation:\nUsers of the affected versions should apply one of the following\nmitigations:\n- Upgrade to Apache Tomcat 11.0.22 or later\n- Upgrade to Apache Tomcat 10.1.55 or later\n- Upgrade to Apache Tomcat 9.0.118 or later\n\nCredit:\nThis issue was identified by Dariusz Go\u0144da",
"id": "GHSA-gx5v-xp9w-j4cg",
"modified": "2026-05-18T20:26:58Z",
"published": "2026-05-12T18:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41284"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/tomcat/commit/17dacd9aa48628da2eba37a9ab743c0b6c71685c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/tomcat/commit/a96fffd18487a29c0a30d36f00cb2b2d91f6d42c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/tomcat/commit/b3d1c1c239142e806be0b7329d304b94a58913ed"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/tomcat"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/2nvqjr7ovjmvx2vbhb7s61ycd5msc8qc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tomcat.apache.org/security-10.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tomcat.apache.org/security-11.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tomcat.apache.org/security-9.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/05/12/12"
}
],
"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": "Apache Tomcat: Unbounded read in WebDAV LOCK and PROPFIND handling"
}
GHSA-GX6W-FQG7-MC3P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-14 15:30 – Updated: 2023-06-26 18:30An issue was discovered jackson-databind thru 2.15.2 allows attackers to cause a denial of service or other unspecified impacts via crafted object that uses cyclic dependencies.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-35116"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-502",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-14T14:15:10Z",
"severity": null
},
"details": "An issue was discovered jackson-databind thru 2.15.2 allows attackers to cause a denial of service or other unspecified impacts via crafted object that uses cyclic dependencies.",
"id": "GHSA-gx6w-fqg7-mc3p",
"modified": "2023-06-26T18:30:26Z",
"published": "2023-06-14T15:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-35116"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-databind/issues/3972"
}
],
"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-H23F-VC89-P5F9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-29 00:31 – Updated: 2026-08-29 00:31IBM Cloud Pak for Data System 11.3.0.2 through Interim Fix 001 is vulnerable to a denial of service due to improper limitation of resources.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-3686"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-28T22:16:49Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Cloud Pak for Data System 11.3.0.2 through Interim Fix 001 is vulnerable to a denial of service due to improper limitation of resources.",
"id": "GHSA-h23f-vc89-p5f9",
"modified": "2026-08-29T00:31:03Z",
"published": "2026-08-29T00:31:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-3686"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7285507"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-H27X-G6W4-24GQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-17 16:16 – Updated: 2026-03-19 18:31Summary
A request containing the next-resume: 1 header (corresponding with a PPR resume request) would buffer request bodies without consistently enforcing maxPostponedStateSize in certain setups. The previous mitigation protected minimal-mode deployments, but equivalent non-minimal deployments remained vulnerable to the same unbounded postponed resume-body buffering behavior.
Impact
In applications using the App Router with Partial Prerendering capability enabled (via experimental.ppr or cacheComponents), an attacker could send oversized next-resume POST payloads that were buffered without consistent size enforcement in non-minimal deployments, causing excessive memory usage and potential denial of service.
Patches
Fixed by enforcing size limits across all postponed-body buffering paths and erroring when limits are exceeded.
Workarounds
If upgrade is not immediately possible:
- Block requests containing the next-resume header, as this is never valid to be sent from an untrusted client.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "next"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "16.0.1"
},
{
"fixed": "16.1.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-27979"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-17T16:16:49Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-18T01:16:04Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\nA request containing the `next-resume: 1` header (corresponding with a PPR resume request) would buffer request bodies without consistently enforcing `maxPostponedStateSize` in certain setups. The previous mitigation protected minimal-mode deployments, but equivalent non-minimal deployments remained vulnerable to the same unbounded postponed resume-body buffering behavior.\n\n## Impact\nIn applications using the App Router with Partial Prerendering capability enabled (via `experimental.ppr` or `cacheComponents`), an attacker could send oversized `next-resume` POST payloads that were buffered without consistent size enforcement in non-minimal deployments, causing excessive memory usage and potential denial of service.\n\n## Patches\nFixed by enforcing size limits across all postponed-body buffering paths and erroring when limits are exceeded. \n\n## Workarounds\nIf upgrade is not immediately possible:\n- Block requests containing the `next-resume` header, as this is never valid to be sent from an untrusted client.",
"id": "GHSA-h27x-g6w4-24gq",
"modified": "2026-03-19T18:31:02Z",
"published": "2026-03-17T16:16:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vercel/next.js/security/advisories/GHSA-h27x-g6w4-24gq"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-27979"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vercel/next.js/commit/c885d4825f800dd1e49ead37274dcd08cdd6f3f1"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/vercel/next.js"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vercel/next.js/releases/tag/v16.1.7"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Next.js: Unbounded postponed resume buffering can lead to DoS"
}
GHSA-H28W-8W8H-4GH3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-17 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-19 00:00SWFTools commit 772e55a2 was discovered to contain a stack overflow via vfprintf at /stdio-common/vfprintf.c.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-35107"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-16T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "SWFTools commit 772e55a2 was discovered to contain a stack overflow via vfprintf at /stdio-common/vfprintf.c.",
"id": "GHSA-h28w-8w8h-4gh3",
"modified": "2022-08-19T00:00:22Z",
"published": "2022-08-17T00:00:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-35107"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/matthiaskramm/swftools/issues/184"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-H2C3-7Q37-GJWP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-13 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-14 18:30In Totara LMS v19.1.5 and before, the forgot password API does not implement rate limiting for the target email address. which can be used for an Email Bombing attack.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-31283"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-13T15:17:33Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "In Totara LMS v19.1.5 and before, the forgot password API does not implement rate limiting for the target email address. which can be used for an Email Bombing attack.",
"id": "GHSA-h2c3-7q37-gjwp",
"modified": "2026-04-14T18:30:33Z",
"published": "2026-04-13T15:31:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-31283"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/saykino/CVE-2026-31283"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://totara.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-H2QV-VJC9-5G55
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-22 15:32 – Updated: 2026-09-22 15:32Mattermost versions 11.9.x <= 11.9.1, 11.8.x <= 11.8.5, 11.7.x <= 11.7.10, 11.10.x <= 11.10.1 fail to limit the length of the post ID array accepted by the bulk reactions endpoint which allows an authenticated user to cause excessive database load via a crafted request to {{POST /api/v4/posts/ids/reactions}}.. Mattermost Advisory ID: MMSA-2026-00771
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-95666"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-22T14:17:21Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Mattermost versions 11.9.x \u003c= 11.9.1, 11.8.x \u003c= 11.8.5, 11.7.x \u003c= 11.7.10, 11.10.x \u003c= 11.10.1 fail to limit the length of the post ID array accepted by the bulk reactions endpoint which allows an authenticated user to cause excessive database load via a crafted request to {{POST /api/v4/posts/ids/reactions}}.. Mattermost Advisory ID: MMSA-2026-00771",
"id": "GHSA-h2qv-vjc9-5g55",
"modified": "2026-09-22T15:32:37Z",
"published": "2026-09-22T15:32:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-95666"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://mattermost.com/security-updates"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-H2V8-394M-P7VV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-27 16:08 – Updated: 2026-10-27 16:08Summary
The built-in (but disabled by default) Brotli certificate decoder bounds the output buffer but accepts an input-selected history window. A header of five bytes can specify a 1 GiB window allocation. A peer can abort a process whose allocator cannot satisfy that request. A client must enable Brotli and connect to the peer; a server must enable Brotli and request a client certificate. Neither direction requires a trusted attacker certificate.
Details
rustls calls BrotliDecompress which enables Brotli's large-window extension. rustls applies a limit to certificates, but this applies to the decompressed result, and not to any internal allocations the process requires.
Impact
Client applications that enable the brotli feature will be vulnerable to malicious servers. Server applications that enable the brotli feature and enable client authentication will be vulnerable to malicious clients.
Potential for denial of service due to memory exhaustion from peers sending malicious Brotli-encoded certificates, for applications that enable Brotli decompression.
Acknowledgement
Thanks to OpenAI OutboundDisclosures@openai.com for the disclosure.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "rustls"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.23.46"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "rustls"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.24.0-dev.1"
},
{
"fixed": "0.24.0-dev.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-10-27T16:08:36Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nThe built-in (but disabled by default) Brotli certificate decoder bounds the output buffer but accepts an input-selected history window. A header of five bytes can specify a 1 GiB window allocation. A peer can abort a process whose allocator cannot satisfy that request. A client must enable Brotli and connect to the peer; a server must enable Brotli and request a client certificate. Neither direction requires a trusted attacker certificate.\n\n### Details\n\nrustls calls `BrotliDecompress` which enables Brotli\u0027s large-window extension. rustls applies a limit to certificates, but this applies to the decompressed result, and not to any internal allocations the process requires.\n\n### Impact\n\nClient applications that enable the `brotli` feature will be vulnerable to malicious servers. Server applications that enable the `brotli` feature and enable client authentication will be vulnerable to malicious clients.\n\nPotential for denial of service due to memory exhaustion from peers sending malicious Brotli-encoded certificates, for applications that enable Brotli decompression.\n\n### Acknowledgement\nThanks to OpenAI [OutboundDisclosures@openai.com](mailto:OutboundDisclosures@openai.com) for the disclosure.",
"id": "GHSA-h2v8-394m-p7vv",
"modified": "2026-10-27T16:08:36Z",
"published": "2026-10-27T16:08:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rustls/rustls/security/advisories/GHSA-h2v8-394m-p7vv"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rustls/rustls/pull/3297"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rustls/rustls/pull/3354"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rustls/rustls/commit/1aa987af37d0d79b98781d345895ac0059ce345c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rustls/rustls/commit/402b7b78b7ae87d59e19cf07ee07f3fc19e6537e"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/rustls/rustls"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rustls/rustls/releases/tag/v/0.23.46"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0348.html"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Rustls: Brotli certificate decompression can allocate an attacker-controlled amount of memory up to 1 GiB before authentication."
}
GHSA-H2VC-RGMF-CP34
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-11 06:30 – Updated: 2025-12-11 06:30GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 11.10 before 18.4.6, 18.5 before 18.5.4, and 18.6 before 18.6.2 that could have allowed an unauthenticated user to create a denial of service condition by sending crafted GraphQL queries that bypass query complexity limits.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-12562"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-11T04:15:58Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 11.10 before 18.4.6, 18.5 before 18.5.4, and 18.6 before 18.6.2 that could have allowed an unauthenticated user to create a denial of service condition by sending crafted GraphQL queries that bypass query complexity limits.",
"id": "GHSA-h2vc-rgmf-cp34",
"modified": "2025-12-11T06:30:24Z",
"published": "2025-12-11T06:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-12562"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/3360710"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2025/12/10/patch-release-gitlab-18-6-2-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/579152"
}
],
"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-H3GC-QFQQ-6H8F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-16 15:32 – Updated: 2025-11-03 21:34Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Apache Tomcat.
This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.7, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.41, from 9.0.0.M1 through 9.0.105. The following versions were EOL at the time the CVE was created but are known to be affected: 8.5.0 though 8.5.100. Other, older, EOL versions may also be affected.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.8, 10.1.42 or 9.0.106, which fix the issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 11.0.7"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat:tomcat-catalina"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "11.0.0-M1"
},
{
"fixed": "11.0.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 10.1.41"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat:tomcat-catalina"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "10.1.0-M1"
},
{
"fixed": "10.1.42"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 9.0.105"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat:tomcat-catalina"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.0.0.M1"
},
{
"fixed": "9.0.106"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 11.0.7"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat.embed:tomcat-embed-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "11.0.0-M1"
},
{
"fixed": "11.0.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 10.1.41"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat.embed:tomcat-embed-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "10.1.0-M1"
},
{
"fixed": "10.1.42"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 9.0.105"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat.embed:tomcat-embed-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.0.0.M1"
},
{
"fixed": "9.0.106"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat:tomcat-catalina"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "8.5.0"
},
{
"last_affected": "8.5.100"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tomcat.embed:tomcat-embed-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "8.5.0"
},
{
"last_affected": "8.5.100"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-48988"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-06-16T17:50:09Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-16T15:15:24Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Apache Tomcat.\n\nThis issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.7, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.41, from 9.0.0.M1 through 9.0.105. The following versions were EOL at the time the CVE was created but are known to be affected: 8.5.0 though 8.5.100. Other, older, EOL versions may also be affected.\n\nUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.8, 10.1.42 or 9.0.106, which fix the issue.",
"id": "GHSA-h3gc-qfqq-6h8f",
"modified": "2025-11-03T21:34:01Z",
"published": "2025-06-16T15:32:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-48988"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/tomcat/commit/2b0ab14fb55d4edc896e5f1817f2ab76f714ae5e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/tomcat/commit/cdde8e655bc1c5c60a07efd216251d77c52fd7f6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/tomcat/commit/ee8042ffce4cb9324dfd79efda5984f37bbb6910"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/apache/tomcat"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/nzkqsok8t42qofgqfmck536mtyzygp18"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/07/msg00009.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tomcat.apache.org/security-10.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tomcat.apache.org/security-11.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tomcat.apache.org/security-9.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/06/16/1"
}
],
"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: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",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Apache Tomcat - DoS in multipart upload"
}
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.