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-P97R-9RRC-GR9R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-23 15:30 – Updated: 2026-09-23 15:30Robur Albatross 1.0.0 through 2.x before 2.7.2 does not limit use of the ring buffer, leading to an albatross-console loop with no recognized termination condition. This is only exploitable by users who can send console subscription commands to unikernels that produce sufficient log output to fill the ring buffer (1024 lines). It is not exploitable by unauthorized clients.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-96609"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-23T15:17:33Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Robur Albatross 1.0.0 through 2.x before 2.7.2 does not limit use of the ring buffer, leading to an albatross-console loop with no recognized termination condition. This is only exploitable by users who can send console subscription commands to unikernels that produce sufficient log output to fill the ring buffer (1024 lines). It is not exploitable by unauthorized clients.",
"id": "GHSA-p97r-9rrc-gr9r",
"modified": "2026-09-23T15:30:50Z",
"published": "2026-09-23T15:30:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-96609"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/robur-coop/albatross/pull/273"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/OSEC-2026-09"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E: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-P9FM-F462-GGRG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-25 21:04 – Updated: 2026-05-06 21:23Impact
Active Storage's proxy controller does not limit the number of byte ranges in an HTTP Range header. A request with thousands of small ranges causes disproportionate CPU usage compared to a normal request for the same file, possibly resulting in a DoS vulnerability.
Releases
The fixed releases are available at the normal locations.
Credit
This issue was responsibly reported by Hackerone researcher thwin_htet.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "activestorage"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "8.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "8.1.2.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "activestorage"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "8.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "8.0.4.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "activestorage"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "7.2.3.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-33658"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-25T21:04:50Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-26T22:16:29Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "### Impact\nActive Storage\u0027s proxy controller does not limit the number of byte ranges in an HTTP Range header. A request with thousands of small ranges causes disproportionate CPU usage compared to a normal request for the same file, possibly resulting in a DoS vulnerability.\n\n### Releases\nThe fixed releases are available at the normal locations.\n\n### Credit\nThis issue was responsibly reported by Hackerone researcher [thwin_htet](https://hackerone.com/thwin_htet).",
"id": "GHSA-p9fm-f462-ggrg",
"modified": "2026-05-06T21:23:02Z",
"published": "2026-03-25T21:04:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rails/rails/security/advisories/GHSA-p9fm-f462-ggrg"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33658"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/rails/rails"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rails/rails/releases/tag/v7.2.3.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rails/rails/releases/tag/v8.0.4.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rails/rails/releases/tag/v8.1.2.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/activestorage/CVE-2026-33658.yml"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Rails Active Storage has a possible DoS vulnerability in proxy mode via multi-range requests"
}
GHSA-P9H5-JM8X-MJM5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-07 21:30 – Updated: 2026-09-17 12:31Well-crafted inputs reaching ParseAddress, ParseAddressList, and ParseDate were able to trigger excessive CPU exhaustion and memory allocations.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-39820"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-606",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-07T20:16:43Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Well-crafted inputs reaching ParseAddress, ParseAddressList, and ParseDate were able to trigger excessive CPU exhaustion and memory allocations.",
"id": "GHSA-p9h5-jm8x-mjm5",
"modified": "2026-09-17T12:31:53Z",
"published": "2026-05-07T21:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-39820"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:65116"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:63022"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:62803"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:62754"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:62753"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:62407"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:62406"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:62260"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:61253"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:60520"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:60023"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:60018"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:59833"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:59830"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:59467"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:57914"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:57845"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:57649"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:57487"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:57482"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:57401"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:57194"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:56854"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:56852"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-39820.json"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2026-4986"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://groups.google.com/g/golang-announce/c/qcCIEXso47M"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://go.dev/issue/78566"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://go.dev/cl/759940"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2467820"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-39820"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:68527"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:68504"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:68334"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:67975"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:67974"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:67517"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:66327"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:66022"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:66016"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:65895"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:65886"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:65838"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:65534"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:65336"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:65335"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:65153"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:65117"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:56789"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:43052"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:43038"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:42796"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:42644"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:42146"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:41928"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:41066"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:41031"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:40262"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36797"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36754"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36625"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:36319"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:34364"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33574"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33150"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33142"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33123"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33120"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:23264"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:23262"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:22121"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:22120"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:22112"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:56340"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54883"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54602"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54583"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54555"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54552"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54531"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54287"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54286"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54285"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54284"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54283"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54274"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:51112"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:51033"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:50843"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:50336"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:50319"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:50300"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:50205"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:49712"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:49702"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:47952"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:43692"
}
],
"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-P9JX-JR54-2XQ2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-13 18:30 – Updated: 2025-05-13 18:30Uncontrolled resource consumption in Remote Desktop Gateway Service allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service over a network.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-26677"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-13T17:15:51Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Uncontrolled resource consumption in Remote Desktop Gateway Service allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service over a network.",
"id": "GHSA-p9jx-jr54-2xq2",
"modified": "2025-05-13T18:30:53Z",
"published": "2025-05-13T18:30:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-26677"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-26677"
}
],
"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-P9W7-RQJ5-FJH5
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 authenticated user to cause a denial of service condition by uploading specially crafted images.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-4097"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-11T05:16:37Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"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 authenticated user to cause a denial of service condition by uploading specially crafted images.",
"id": "GHSA-p9w7-rqj5-fjh5",
"modified": "2025-12-11T06:30:24Z",
"published": "2025-12-11T06:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-4097"
},
{
"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/538192"
}
],
"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-PC3F-X583-G7J2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-16 20:44 – Updated: 2026-06-08 23:36The SPDY/3 frame parser in spdystream does not validate
attacker-controlled counts and lengths before allocating memory. A
remote peer that can send SPDY frames to a service using spdystream can
cause the process to allocate gigabytes of memory with a small number of
malformed control frames, leading to an out-of-memory crash.
Three allocation paths in the receive side are affected:
1. SETTINGS entry count -- The SETTINGS frame reader reads a 32-bit
numSettings from the payload and allocates a slice of that size
without checking it against the declared frame length. An attacker
can set numSettings to a value far exceeding the actual payload,
triggering a large allocation before any setting data is read.
2. Header count -- parseHeaderValueBlock reads a 32-bit
numHeaders from the decompressed header block and allocates an
http.Header map of that size with no upper bound.
3. Header field size -- Individual header name and value lengths are
read as 32-bit integers and used directly as allocation sizes with
no validation.
Because SPDY header blocks are zlib-compressed, a small on-the-wire
payload can decompress into attacker-controlled bytes that the parser
interprets as 32-bit counts and lengths. A single crafted frame is
enough to exhaust process memory.
Impact
Any program that accepts SPDY connections using spdystream -- directly or through a dependent library -- is affected. A remote peer that can send SPDY frames to the service can crash the process with a single crafted SPDY control frame, causing denial of service.
Affected versions
github.com/moby/spdystream <= v0.5.0
Fix
v0.5.1 addresses the receive-side allocation bugs and adds related
hardening:
Core fixes:
- SETTINGS entry-count validation -- The SETTINGS frame reader now
checks that numSettings is consistent with the declared frame
length (numSettings <= (length-4)/8) before allocating.
- Header count limit -- parseHeaderValueBlock enforces a maximum
number of headers per frame (default: 1000).
- Header field size limit -- Individual header name and value
lengths are checked against a per-field size limit (default: 1 MiB)
before allocation.
- Connection closure on protocol error -- The connection read loop
now closes the underlying net.Conn when it encounters an
InvalidControlFrame error, preventing further exploitation on the
same connection.
Additional hardening:
- Write-side bounds checks -- All frame write methods now verify
that payloads fit within the 24-bit length field, preventing the
library from producing invalid frames.
Configurable limits:
- Callers can adjust the defaults using NewConnectionWithOptions or
the lower-level spdy.NewFramerWithOptions with functional options:
WithMaxControlFramePayloadSize, WithMaxHeaderFieldSize, and
WithMaxHeaderCount.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.5.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/moby/spdystream"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.5.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-35469"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-16T20:44:01Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-16T22:16:37Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The SPDY/3 frame parser in spdystream does not validate\nattacker-controlled counts and lengths before allocating memory. A\nremote peer that can send SPDY frames to a service using spdystream can\ncause the process to allocate gigabytes of memory with a small number of\nmalformed control frames, leading to an out-of-memory crash.\n\u00a0\nThree allocation paths in the receive side are affected:\n1. **SETTINGS entry count** -- The SETTINGS frame reader reads a 32-bit\n`numSettings` from the payload and allocates a slice of that size\nwithout checking it against the declared frame length. An attacker\ncan set `numSettings` to a value far exceeding the actual payload,\ntriggering a large allocation before any setting data is read.\n\u00a0\n2. **Header count** -- `parseHeaderValueBlock` reads a 32-bit\n`numHeaders` from the decompressed header block and allocates an\n`http.Header` map of that size with no upper bound.\n\u00a0\n3. **Header field size** -- Individual header name and value lengths are\nread as 32-bit integers and used directly as allocation sizes with\nno validation.\n\u00a0\nBecause SPDY header blocks are zlib-compressed, a small on-the-wire\npayload can decompress into attacker-controlled bytes that the parser\ninterprets as 32-bit counts and lengths. A single crafted frame is\nenough to exhaust process memory.\n## Impact\n\u00a0Any program that accepts SPDY connections using spdystream -- directly\nor through a dependent library -- is affected. A remote peer that can\nsend SPDY frames to the service can crash the process with a single\ncrafted SPDY control frame, causing denial of service.\n## Affected versions\n\u00a0`github.com/moby/spdystream` \u003c= v0.5.0\n## Fix\n\u00a0v0.5.1 addresses the receive-side allocation bugs and adds related\nhardening:\n\u00a0\n**Core fixes:**\n\u00a0\n- **SETTINGS entry-count validation** -- The SETTINGS frame reader now\nchecks that `numSettings` is consistent with the declared frame\nlength (`numSettings \u003c= (length-4)/8`) before allocating.\n\u00a0\n- **Header count limit** -- `parseHeaderValueBlock` enforces a maximum\nnumber of headers per frame (default: 1000).\n\u00a0\n- **Header field size limit** -- Individual header name and value\nlengths are checked against a per-field size limit (default: 1 MiB)\nbefore allocation.\n\u00a0\n- **Connection closure on protocol error** -- The connection read loop\nnow closes the underlying `net.Conn` when it encounters an\n`InvalidControlFrame` error, preventing further exploitation on the\nsame connection.\n\u00a0\n**Additional hardening:**\n\u00a0\n- **Write-side bounds checks** -- All frame write methods now verify\nthat payloads fit within the 24-bit length field, preventing the\nlibrary from producing invalid frames.\n\u00a0\n**Configurable limits:**\n\u00a0\n- Callers can adjust the defaults using `NewConnectionWithOptions` or\nthe lower-level `spdy.NewFramerWithOptions` with functional options:\n`WithMaxControlFramePayloadSize`, `WithMaxHeaderFieldSize`, and\n`WithMaxHeaderCount`.\n\u00a0",
"id": "GHSA-pc3f-x583-g7j2",
"modified": "2026-06-08T23:36:28Z",
"published": "2026-04-16T20:44:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moby/spdystream/security/advisories/GHSA-pc3f-x583-g7j2"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-35469"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moby/spdystream/commit/ef6121f62c730110bf5ae604a865a8613bfb787f"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/moby/spdystream"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moby/spdystream/releases/tag/v0.5.1"
}
],
"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:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "SpdyStream: DOS on CRI"
}
GHSA-PC8G-78PF-4XRP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-02 18:49 – Updated: 2026-03-05 22:49Summary
The PasswordHash API endpoint allows unauthenticated users to trigger excessive memory allocation by sending concurrent password hashing requests. By issuing multiple parallel requests, an attacker can exhaust available container memory, leading to service degradation or complete denial of service (DoS).
The issue occurs because the endpoint performs computationally and memory-intensive hashing operations without request throttling, authentication requirements, or resource limits.
Details
The vulnerable endpoint:
POST /api/olivetin.api.v1.OliveTinApiService/PasswordHash
accepts a JSON body containing a password field and returns a computed password hash.
Each request triggers a memory-intensive hashing operation. When multiple concurrent requests are sent, memory consumption increases significantly. There are no safeguards such as:
- Authentication requirements
- Rate limiting
- Request throttling
- Memory usage caps per request
- Concurrency controls
As a result, an attacker can repeatedly invoke the endpoint in parallel, causing excessive RAM allocation inside the container.
In a test environment, 50 concurrent requests resulted in approximately 3.2 GB of memory usage (≈64 MB per request), leading to service instability.
This behavior allows unauthenticated attackers to perform a denial of service attack by exhausting server memory resources.
PoC
Environment
- Docker container: olivetin-test
- Exposed API on: http://localhost:1337
- Default configuration (no authentication enabled)
Reproduction Steps
Run the following script to send 50 concurrent requests:
for i in $(seq 1 50); do
curl -s -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/olivetin.api.v1.OliveTinApiService/PasswordHash \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d "{\"password\":\"flood-$i\"}" &
done
docker stats olivetin-test --no-stream
wait
┌──(root㉿kali)-[~/cve/OliveTin]
└─# docker stats olivetin-test --no-stream
CONTAINER ID NAME CPU % MEM USAGE / LIMIT MEM % NET I/O BLOCK I/O PIDS
18509670bf3e olivetin-test 344.63% 6.189GiB / 7.753GiB 79.83% 313kB / 288kB 4.31MB / 106MB 7
Docker CPU is 344.63%
Impact
This vulnerability allows unauthenticated remote attackers to:
- Exhaust server memory
- Crash the service
- Cause availability loss
- Trigger container termination in orchestrated environments
This is a Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability affecting service availability.
Production deployments without reverse proxy rate limiting (e.g., Nginx, Traefik) are especially at risk.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.0-20260227002407-2eb5f0ba79d4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-28342"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-02T18:49:27Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-05T20:16:15Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe PasswordHash API endpoint allows unauthenticated users to trigger excessive memory allocation by sending concurrent password hashing requests. By issuing multiple parallel requests, an attacker can exhaust available container memory, leading to service degradation or complete denial of service (DoS).\n\nThe issue occurs because the endpoint performs computationally and memory-intensive hashing operations without request throttling, authentication requirements, or resource limits.\n\n## Details\n\nThe vulnerable endpoint:\n\n`POST /api/olivetin.api.v1.OliveTinApiService/PasswordHash`\n\naccepts a JSON body containing a password field and returns a computed password hash.\n\nEach request triggers a memory-intensive hashing operation. When multiple concurrent requests are sent, memory consumption increases significantly. There are no safeguards such as:\n\n- Authentication requirements\n- Rate limiting\n- Request throttling\n- Memory usage caps per request\n- Concurrency controls\n\nAs a result, an attacker can repeatedly invoke the endpoint in parallel, causing excessive RAM allocation inside the container.\n\nIn a test environment, 50 concurrent requests resulted in approximately 3.2 GB of memory usage (\u224864 MB per request), leading to service instability.\n\nThis behavior allows unauthenticated attackers to perform a denial of service attack by exhausting server memory resources.\n\n## PoC\nEnvironment\n\n- Docker container: olivetin-test\n- Exposed API on: http://localhost:1337\n- Default configuration (no authentication enabled)\n\n## Reproduction Steps\n\nRun the following script to send 50 concurrent requests:\n\n```bash\nfor i in $(seq 1 50); do\n curl -s -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/olivetin.api.v1.OliveTinApiService/PasswordHash \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \"{\\\"password\\\":\\\"flood-$i\\\"}\" \u0026\ndone\ndocker stats olivetin-test --no-stream\nwait\n```\n\n```bash\n\u250c\u2500\u2500(root\u327fkali)-[~/cve/OliveTin]\n\u2514\u2500# docker stats olivetin-test --no-stream\nCONTAINER ID NAME CPU % MEM USAGE / LIMIT MEM % NET I/O BLOCK I/O PIDS\n18509670bf3e olivetin-test 344.63% 6.189GiB / 7.753GiB 79.83% 313kB / 288kB 4.31MB / 106MB 7\n\n```\n\n`Docker CPU is 344.63%`\n\n### Impact\n\nThis vulnerability allows unauthenticated remote attackers to:\n\n- Exhaust server memory\n- Crash the service\n- Cause availability loss\n- Trigger container termination in orchestrated environments\n\nThis is a Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability affecting service availability.\n\nProduction deployments without reverse proxy rate limiting (e.g., Nginx, Traefik) are especially at risk.",
"id": "GHSA-pc8g-78pf-4xrp",
"modified": "2026-03-05T22:49:13Z",
"published": "2026-03-02T18:49:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin/security/advisories/GHSA-pc8g-78pf-4xrp"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28342"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin/commit/2eb5f0ba79d4bbef3c802bf8b4666a7e18dcfd90"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin/releases/tag/3000.10.2"
}
],
"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": "OliveTin has Unauthenticated Denial of Service via Memory Exhaustion in PasswordHash API Endpoint"
}
GHSA-PCG2-G6CJ-Q92C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-28 22:43 – Updated: 2026-10-28 22:43Summary
Tornado's HTTP header parser takes quadratic time (O(n²)) when a header value is continued across many "obsolete line folding" (obs-fold) lines. An unauthenticated attacker can send a request whose header block is mostly short continuation lines. Parsing it uses a large amount of CPU on the IOLoop thread and blocks every other connection that process is serving.
This issue is closely related to CVE-2025-67725 (GHSA-c98p-7wgm-6p64). The fix for that advisory covered repeated headers but not line-folded continuations.
Impact
All Tornado HTTP servers are affected. Header parsing runs before any application code, so no authentication or particular handler is required.
How bad it gets depends on max_header_size:
- Default (64 KB): each malicious request blocks the event loop for tens of milliseconds. Repeated requests can degrade service.
- Raised
max_header_size: the cost grows with the square of the header size. A single 1 MB request can block the process for several seconds.
Only availability is affected. Confidentiality and integrity are not.
Patches
Fixed in Tornado 6.6 by removing support for obsolete line folding completely; header lines that begin with whitespace are now rejected.
Workarounds
- Keep
max_header_sizeat its default value or lower it. This limits the impact but doesn't remove it. - Run Tornado behind a reverse proxy that rejects or normalizes obsolete line folding before forwarding requests.
Credit
Reported by @manus-pi.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "tornado"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "6.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-116577"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-407",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-10-28T22:43:41Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-26T21:18:14Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nTornado\u0027s HTTP header parser takes quadratic time (O(n\u00b2)) when a header value is continued across many \"obsolete line folding\" (obs-fold) lines. An unauthenticated attacker can send a request whose header block is mostly short continuation lines. Parsing it uses a large amount of CPU on the IOLoop thread and blocks every other connection that process is serving.\n\nThis issue is closely related to CVE-2025-67725 (GHSA-c98p-7wgm-6p64). The fix for that advisory covered repeated headers but not line-folded continuations.\n\n### Impact\n\nAll Tornado HTTP servers are affected. Header parsing runs before any application code, so no authentication or particular handler is required.\n\nHow bad it gets depends on `max_header_size`:\n\n- **Default (64 KB):** each malicious request blocks the event loop for tens of milliseconds. Repeated requests can degrade service.\n- **Raised `max_header_size`:** the cost grows with the square of the header size. A single 1 MB request can block the process for several seconds.\n\nOnly availability is affected. Confidentiality and integrity are not.\n\n### Patches\n\nFixed in Tornado 6.6 by removing support for obsolete line folding completely; header lines that begin with whitespace are now rejected.\n\n### Workarounds\n\n- Keep `max_header_size` at its default value or lower it. This limits the impact but doesn\u0027t remove it.\n- Run Tornado behind a reverse proxy that rejects or normalizes obsolete line folding before forwarding requests.\n\n### Credit\n\nReported by @manus-pi.",
"id": "GHSA-pcg2-g6cj-q92c",
"modified": "2026-10-28T22:43:41Z",
"published": "2026-10-28T22:43:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tornadoweb/tornado/security/advisories/GHSA-pcg2-g6cj-q92c"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-116577"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tornadoweb/tornado/pull/3765"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tornadoweb/tornado/commit/1b7a1dc9f340f52de929852e8125aa12f25297c9"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/tornadoweb/tornado"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tornadoweb/tornado/releases/tag/v6.6.0"
}
],
"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": "Tornado: Quadratic CPU usage when parsing HTTP headers with line folding"
}
GHSA-PCG3-64VV-W6JF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-02 15:31 – Updated: 2024-12-03 18:31rizin before Release v0.6.3 is vulnerable to Uncontrolled Resource Consumption via bin_pe_parse_imports, Pe_r_bin_pe_parse_var, and estimate_slide.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-31669"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-02T15:15:11Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "rizin before Release v0.6.3 is vulnerable to Uncontrolled Resource Consumption via bin_pe_parse_imports, Pe_r_bin_pe_parse_var, and estimate_slide.",
"id": "GHSA-pcg3-64vv-w6jf",
"modified": "2024-12-03T18:31:03Z",
"published": "2024-12-02T15:31:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-31669"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rizinorg/rizin/commit/e42999dda0be7737fafaf5e63c1c5833a72fd9c9"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/Crispy-fried-chicken/fb9f7000f0517a085483f7f2a60f0f08"
}
],
"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-PCP6-PXXR-G2VH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-28 15:31 – Updated: 2025-02-28 15:31Application does not limit the number or frequency of user interactions, such as the number of incoming requests. At the "/EPMUI/VfManager.asmx/ChangePassword" endpoint it is possible to perform a brute force attack on the current password in use.
This issue affects CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager in SaaS version 24.7.1. The status of other versions is unknown. After multiple attempts to contact the vendor we did not receive any answer.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-22273"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-28T13:15:27Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Application does not limit the number or frequency of user interactions, such as the number of incoming requests. At the \"/EPMUI/VfManager.asmx/ChangePassword\" endpoint it is possible to perform a brute force attack on the current password in use.\n\n\nThis issue affects\u00a0CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager in SaaS version 24.7.1. The status of other versions is unknown.\u00a0After multiple attempts to contact the vendor we did not receive any answer.",
"id": "GHSA-pcp6-pxxr-g2vh",
"modified": "2025-02-28T15:31:03Z",
"published": "2025-02-28T15:31:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-22273"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert.pl/en/posts/2025/02/CVE-2025-22270"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert.pl/posts/2025/02/CVE-2025-22270"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.cyberark.com/epm/24.7.1/en/content/resources/_topnav/cc_home.htm"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
Mitigation
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Mitigation
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
Mitigation
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation
- Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
- recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays
- uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
- The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
- The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
Mitigation
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
Mitigation MIT-38.1
- If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery.
- Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
Mitigation MIT-47
Strategy: Resource Limitation
- Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems.
- When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users.
- Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).
CAPEC-125: Flooding
An adversary consumes the resources of a target by rapidly engaging in a large number of interactions with the target. This type of attack generally exposes a weakness in rate limiting or flow. When successful this attack prevents legitimate users from accessing the service and can cause the target to crash. This attack differs from resource depletion through leaks or allocations in that the latter attacks do not rely on the volume of requests made to the target but instead focus on manipulation of the target's operations. The key factor in a flooding attack is the number of requests the adversary can make in a given period of time. The greater this number, the more likely an attack is to succeed against a given target.
CAPEC-130: Excessive Allocation
An adversary causes the target to allocate excessive resources to servicing the attackers' request, thereby reducing the resources available for legitimate services and degrading or denying services. Usually, this attack focuses on memory allocation, but any finite resource on the target could be the attacked, including bandwidth, processing cycles, or other resources. This attack does not attempt to force this allocation through a large number of requests (that would be Resource Depletion through Flooding) but instead uses one or a small number of requests that are carefully formatted to force the target to allocate excessive resources to service this request(s). Often this attack takes advantage of a bug in the target to cause the target to allocate resources vastly beyond what would be needed for a normal request.
CAPEC-147: XML Ping of the Death
An attacker initiates a resource depletion attack where a large number of small XML messages are delivered at a sufficiently rapid rate to cause a denial of service or crash of the target. Transactions such as repetitive SOAP transactions can deplete resources faster than a simple flooding attack because of the additional resources used by the SOAP protocol and the resources necessary to process SOAP messages. The transactions used are immaterial as long as they cause resource utilization on the target. In other words, this is a normal flooding attack augmented by using messages that will require extra processing on the target.
CAPEC-197: Exponential Data Expansion
An adversary submits data to a target application which contains nested exponential data expansion to produce excessively large output. Many data format languages allow the definition of macro-like structures that can be used to simplify the creation of complex structures. However, this capability can be abused to create excessive demands on a processor's CPU and memory. A small number of nested expansions can result in an exponential growth in demands on memory.
CAPEC-229: Serialized Data Parameter Blowup
This attack exploits certain serialized data parsers (e.g., XML, YAML, etc.) which manage data in an inefficient manner. The attacker crafts an serialized data file with multiple configuration parameters in the same dataset. In a vulnerable parser, this results in a denial of service condition where CPU resources are exhausted because of the parsing algorithm. The weakness being exploited is tied to parser implementation and not language specific.
CAPEC-230: Serialized Data with Nested Payloads
Applications often need to transform data in and out of a data format (e.g., XML and YAML) by using a parser. It may be possible for an adversary to inject data that may have an adverse effect on the parser when it is being processed. Many data format languages allow the definition of macro-like structures that can be used to simplify the creation of complex structures. By nesting these structures, causing the data to be repeatedly substituted, an adversary can cause the parser to consume more resources while processing, causing excessive memory consumption and CPU utilization.
CAPEC-231: Oversized Serialized Data Payloads
An adversary injects oversized serialized data payloads into a parser during data processing to produce adverse effects upon the parser such as exhausting system resources and arbitrary code execution.
CAPEC-469: HTTP DoS
An attacker performs flooding at the HTTP level to bring down only a particular web application rather than anything listening on a TCP/IP connection. This denial of service attack requires substantially fewer packets to be sent which makes DoS harder to detect. This is an equivalent of SYN flood in HTTP. The idea is to keep the HTTP session alive indefinitely and then repeat that hundreds of times. This attack targets resource depletion weaknesses in web server software. The web server will wait to attacker's responses on the initiated HTTP sessions while the connection threads are being exhausted.
CAPEC-482: TCP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the TCP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service. These attacks exploit the weakness within the TCP protocol where there is some state information for the connection the server needs to maintain. This often involves the use of TCP SYN messages.
CAPEC-486: UDP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the UDP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming the available network bandwidth. Additionally, firewalls often open a port for each UDP connection destined for a service with an open UDP port, meaning the firewalls in essence save the connection state thus the high packet nature of a UDP flood can also overwhelm resources allocated to the firewall. UDP attacks can also target services like DNS or VoIP which utilize these protocols. Additionally, due to the session-less nature of the UDP protocol, the source of a packet is easily spoofed making it difficult to find the source of the attack.
CAPEC-487: ICMP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the ICMP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming the available network bandwidth. A typical attack involves a victim server receiving ICMP packets at a high rate from a wide range of source addresses. Additionally, due to the session-less nature of the ICMP protocol, the source of a packet is easily spoofed making it difficult to find the source of the attack.
CAPEC-488: HTTP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the HTTP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming resources at the application layer such as web services and their infrastructure. These attacks use legitimate session-based HTTP GET requests designed to consume large amounts of a server's resources. Since these are legitimate sessions this attack is very difficult to detect.
CAPEC-489: SSL Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the SSL protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming all the available resources on the server side. These attacks take advantage of the asymmetric relationship between the processing power used by the client and the processing power used by the server to create a secure connection. In this manner the attacker can make a large number of HTTPS requests on a low provisioned machine to tie up a disproportionately large number of resources on the server. The clients then continue to keep renegotiating the SSL connection. When multiplied by a large number of attacking machines, this attack can result in a crash or loss of service to legitimate users.
CAPEC-490: Amplification
An adversary may execute an amplification where the size of a response is far greater than that of the request that generates it. The goal of this attack is to use a relatively few resources to create a large amount of traffic against a target server. To execute this attack, an adversary send a request to a 3rd party service, spoofing the source address to be that of the target server. The larger response that is generated by the 3rd party service is then sent to the target server. By sending a large number of initial requests, the adversary can generate a tremendous amount of traffic directed at the target. The greater the discrepancy in size between the initial request and the final payload delivered to the target increased the effectiveness of this attack.
CAPEC-491: Quadratic Data Expansion
An adversary exploits macro-like substitution to cause a denial of service situation due to excessive memory being allocated to fully expand the data. The result of this denial of service could cause the application to freeze or crash. This involves defining a very large entity and using it multiple times in a single entity substitution. CAPEC-197 is a similar attack pattern, but it is easier to discover and defend against. This attack pattern does not perform multi-level substitution and therefore does not obviously appear to consume extensive resources.
CAPEC-493: SOAP Array Blowup
An adversary may execute an attack on a web service that uses SOAP messages in communication. By sending a very large SOAP array declaration to the web service, the attacker forces the web service to allocate space for the array elements before they are parsed by the XML parser. The attacker message is typically small in size containing a large array declaration of say 1,000,000 elements and a couple of array elements. This attack targets exhaustion of the memory resources of the web service.
CAPEC-494: TCP Fragmentation
An adversary may execute a TCP Fragmentation attack against a target with the intention of avoiding filtering rules of network controls, by attempting to fragment the TCP packet such that the headers flag field is pushed into the second fragment which typically is not filtered.
CAPEC-495: UDP Fragmentation
An attacker may execute a UDP Fragmentation attack against a target server in an attempt to consume resources such as bandwidth and CPU. IP fragmentation occurs when an IP datagram is larger than the MTU of the route the datagram has to traverse. Typically the attacker will use large UDP packets over 1500 bytes of data which forces fragmentation as ethernet MTU is 1500 bytes. This attack is a variation on a typical UDP flood but it enables more network bandwidth to be consumed with fewer packets. Additionally it has the potential to consume server CPU resources and fill memory buffers associated with the processing and reassembling of fragmented packets.
CAPEC-496: ICMP Fragmentation
An attacker may execute a ICMP Fragmentation attack against a target with the intention of consuming resources or causing a crash. The attacker crafts a large number of identical fragmented IP packets containing a portion of a fragmented ICMP message. The attacker these sends these messages to a target host which causes the host to become non-responsive. Another vector may be sending a fragmented ICMP message to a target host with incorrect sizes in the header which causes the host to hang.
CAPEC-528: XML Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using XML messages with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a web service. These attacks are accomplished by sending a large number of XML based requests and letting the service attempt to parse each one. In many cases this type of an attack will result in a XML Denial of Service (XDoS) due to an application becoming unstable, freezing, or crashing.