GHSA-QW69-RQJ8-6QW8

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-19 18:15 – Updated: 2023-04-19 18:15
VLAI
Summary
OutOfMemoryError for large multipart without filename in Eclipse Jetty
Details

Impact

Servlets with multipart support (e.g. annotated with @MultipartConfig) that call HttpServletRequest.getParameter() or HttpServletRequest.getParts() may cause OutOfMemoryError when the client sends a multipart request with a part that has a name but no filename and a very large content.

This happens even with the default settings of fileSizeThreshold=0 which should stream the whole part content to disk.

An attacker client may send a large multipart request and cause the server to throw OutOfMemoryError. However, the server may be able to recover after the OutOfMemoryError and continue its service -- although it may take some time.

A very large number of parts may cause the same problem.

Patches

Patched in Jetty versions

  • 9.4.51.v20230217 - via PR #9345
  • 10.0.14 - via PR #9344
  • 11.0.14 - via PR #9344

Workarounds

Multipart parameter maxRequestSize must be set to a non-negative value, so the whole multipart content is limited (although still read into memory). Limiting multipart parameter maxFileSize won't be enough because an attacker can send a large number of parts that summed up will cause memory issues.

References

  • https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/issues/9076
  • https://github.com/jakartaee/servlet/blob/6.0.0/spec/src/main/asciidoc/servlet-spec-body.adoc#32-file-upload
Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "9.4.51.v20230217"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "10.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "10.0.14"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "11.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "11.0.14"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-26048"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400",
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2023-04-19T18:15:45Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-04-18T21:15:08Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\nServlets with multipart support (e.g. annotated with `@MultipartConfig`) that call `HttpServletRequest.getParameter()` or `HttpServletRequest.getParts()` may cause `OutOfMemoryError` when the client sends a multipart request with a part that has a name but no filename and a very large content.\n\nThis happens even with the default settings of `fileSizeThreshold=0` which should stream the whole part content to disk.\n\nAn attacker client may send a large multipart request and cause the server to throw `OutOfMemoryError`.\nHowever, the server may be able to recover after the `OutOfMemoryError` and continue its service -- although it may take some time.\n\nA very large number of parts may cause the same problem.\n\n### Patches\nPatched in Jetty versions\n\n* 9.4.51.v20230217 - via PR #9345\n* 10.0.14 - via PR #9344\n* 11.0.14 - via PR #9344\n\n### Workarounds\nMultipart parameter `maxRequestSize` must be set to a non-negative value, so the whole multipart content is limited (although still read into memory).\nLimiting multipart parameter `maxFileSize` won\u0027t be enough because an attacker can send a large number of parts that summed up will cause memory issues.\n\n### References\n* https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/issues/9076\n* https://github.com/jakartaee/servlet/blob/6.0.0/spec/src/main/asciidoc/servlet-spec-body.adoc#32-file-upload\n",
  "id": "GHSA-qw69-rqj8-6qw8",
  "modified": "2023-04-19T18:15:45Z",
  "published": "2023-04-19T18:15:45Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/security/advisories/GHSA-qw69-rqj8-6qw8"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-26048"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/issues/9076"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/pull/9344"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/pull/9345"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/releases/tag/jetty-9.4.51.v20230217"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jakartaee/servlet/blob/6.0.0/spec/src/main/asciidoc/servlet-spec-body.adoc#32-file-upload"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2023/09/msg00039.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20230526-0001"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2023/dsa-5507"
    }
  ],
  "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": "OutOfMemoryError for large multipart without filename in Eclipse Jetty"
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Loading timeline…




    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.