Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-770

Allowed

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

Abstraction: Base · Status: Incomplete

API response cwe.mitre.org

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.

3105 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-23JV-V6QJ-3FHH

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-05-18 18:19 – Updated: 2023-09-29 15:52
VLAI
Summary
Denial of Service (DoS) in HashiCorp Consul
Details

HashiCorp Consul and Consul Enterprise up to 1.6.2 HTTP/RPC services allowed unbounded resource usage, and were susceptible to unauthenticated denial of service. Fixed in 1.6.3.

Specific Go Packages Affected

github.com/hashicorp/consul/agent/consul

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/hashicorp/consul"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.6.3"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2020-7219"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400",
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2021-05-13T15:07:53Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2020-01-31T13:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "HashiCorp Consul and Consul Enterprise up to 1.6.2 HTTP/RPC services allowed unbounded resource usage, and were susceptible to unauthenticated denial of service. Fixed in 1.6.3.\n\n### Specific Go Packages Affected\ngithub.com/hashicorp/consul/agent/consul",
  "id": "GHSA-23jv-v6qj-3fhh",
  "modified": "2023-09-29T15:52:57Z",
  "published": "2021-05-18T18:19:21Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-7219"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/hashicorp/consul/issues/7159"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/category/consul"
    }
  ],
  "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": "Denial of Service (DoS) in HashiCorp Consul"
}

GHSA-23JX-RF54-6Q5G

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-15 15:30 – Updated: 2025-10-15 15:30
VLAI
Details

When BIG-IP SSL Orchestrator is enabled, undisclosed traffic can cause the Traffic Management Microkernel (TMM) to terminate.

Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
8.7 (High)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-41430"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-10-15T14:15:47Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "When BIG-IP SSL Orchestrator is enabled, undisclosed traffic can cause the Traffic Management Microkernel (TMM) to terminate. \n\n\nNote: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.",
  "id": "GHSA-23jx-rf54-6q5g",
  "modified": "2025-10-15T15:30:27Z",
  "published": "2025-10-15T15:30:27Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-41430"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://my.f5.com/manage/s/article/K000150667"
    }
  ],
  "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:L/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-23RF-6693-G89P

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-20 22:49 – Updated: 2026-07-21 17:28
VLAI
Summary
Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-50648 – .NET Denial of Service Vulnerability
Details

Executive summary

Microsoft is releasing this security advisory to provide information about a vulnerability in .NET XML Encryption (System.Security.Cryptography.Xml). This advisory also provides guidance on what developers can do to update their applications to remove this vulnerability.

A denial of service vulnerability exists in the XML encryption implementation (EncryptedXml) in .NET 8, .NET 9, and .NET 10. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by supplying crafted encrypted XML that causes uncontrolled resource consumption, resulting in denial of service.

Announcement

Announcement for this issue can be found at https://github.com/dotnet/announcements/issues/TBD

CVSS Details

  • Version: 3.1
  • Severity: High
  • Score: 7.5
  • Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
  • Weakness: CWE-770 (Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling)

Affected Platforms

  • Platforms: All
  • Architectures: All

Affected Packages

The vulnerability affects any Microsoft .NET project if it uses any of affected package versions listed below

.NET 10.0

Package name Affected version Patched version
System.Security.Cryptography.Xml >= 10.0.0, <= 10.0.9 10.0.10

.NET 9.0

Package name Affected version Patched version
System.Security.Cryptography.Xml >= 9.0.0, <= 9.0.17 9.0.18

.NET 8.0

Package name Affected version Patched version
System.Security.Cryptography.Xml >= 8.0.0, <= 8.0.3 8.0.4

Advisory FAQ

How do I know if I am affected?

If using a package listed in affected packages, you're exposed to the vulnerability.

How do I fix the issue?

To update the System.Security.Cryptography.Xml NuGet package, use one of the following methods:

NuGet Package Manager UI in Visual Studio: - Open your project in Visual Studio. - Right-click on your project in Solution Explorer and select "Manage NuGet Packages..." or navigate to "Project > Manage NuGet Packages". - In the NuGet Package Manager window, select the "Updates" tab. This tab lists packages with available updates from your configured package sources. - Select the package(s) you wish to update. You can choose a specific version from the dropdown or update to the latest available version. - Click the "Update" button.

Using the NuGet Package Manager Console in Visual Studio: - Open your project in Visual Studio. - Navigate to "Tools > NuGet Package Manager > Package Manager Console". - To update a specific package to its latest version, use the following Update-Package command:

Update-Package -Id System.Security.Cryptography.Xml

Using the .NET CLI (Command Line Interface): - Open a terminal or command prompt in your project's directory. - To update a specific package to its latest version, use the following add package command:

dotnet add package System.Security.Cryptography.Xml

Once you have updated the nuget package reference you must recompile and deploy your application. Additionally we recommend you update your runtime and/or SDKs, but it is not necessary to patch the vulnerability.

Other Information

Reporting Security Issues

If you have found a potential security issue in a supported version of .NET, please report it to the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) via the MSRC Researcher Portal. Further information can be found in the MSRC Report an Issue FAQ.

Security reports made through MSRC may qualify for the Microsoft .NET Bounty. Details of the Microsoft .NET Bounty Program including terms and conditions are at https://aka.ms/corebounty.

Support

You can ask questions about this issue on GitHub in the .NET GitHub organization. The main repos are located at https://github.com/dotnet/runtime. The Announcements repo (https://github.com/dotnet/Announcements) will contain this bulletin as an issue and will include a link to a discussion issue. You can ask questions in the linked discussion issue.

Disclaimer

The information provided in this advisory is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Microsoft disclaims all warranties, either express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall Microsoft Corporation or its suppliers be liable for any damages whatsoever including direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, loss of business profits or special damages, even if Microsoft Corporation or its suppliers have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages so the foregoing limitation may not apply.

External Links

CVE-2026-50648

Acknowledgements

41ae55e9310ff27fa6f26af4727e5590

Revisions

V1.0 (July 14, 2026): Advisory published.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 10.0.9"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "NuGet",
        "name": "System.Security.Cryptography.Xml"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "10.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "10.0.10"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 9.0.17"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "NuGet",
        "name": "System.Security.Cryptography.Xml"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "9.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "9.0.18"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 8.0.3"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "NuGet",
        "name": "System.Security.Cryptography.Xml"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "8.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "8.0.4"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-50648"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-20T22:49:32Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-07-14T20:17:37Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "## Executive summary\n\nMicrosoft is releasing this security advisory to provide information about a vulnerability in .NET XML Encryption (System.Security.Cryptography.Xml). This advisory also provides guidance on what developers can do to update their applications to remove this vulnerability.\n\nA denial of service vulnerability exists in the XML encryption implementation (EncryptedXml) in .NET 8, .NET 9, and .NET 10. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by supplying crafted encrypted XML that causes uncontrolled resource consumption, resulting in denial of service.\n\n## Announcement\n\nAnnouncement for this issue can be found at https://github.com/dotnet/announcements/issues/**TBD**\n\n## CVSS Details\n\n- **Version:** 3.1\n- **Severity:** High\n- **Score:** 7.5\n- **Vector:** `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H`\n- **Weakness:** CWE-770 (Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling)\n\n## Affected Platforms\n\n- **Platforms:** All\n- **Architectures:** All\n\n## \u003ca name=\"affected-packages\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eAffected Packages\nThe vulnerability affects any Microsoft .NET project if it uses any of affected package versions listed below\n\n### \u003ca name=\".NET 10.0\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e.NET 10.0\nPackage name | Affected version | Patched version\n------------ | ---------------- | -------------------------\n[System.Security.Cryptography.Xml](https://www.nuget.org/packages/System.Security.Cryptography.Xml)               | \u003e= 10.0.0, \u003c= 10.0.9 | 10.0.10\n\n### \u003ca name=\".NET 9.0\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e.NET 9.0\nPackage name | Affected version | Patched version\n------------ | ---------------- | -------------------------\n[System.Security.Cryptography.Xml](https://www.nuget.org/packages/System.Security.Cryptography.Xml)               | \u003e= 9.0.0, \u003c= 9.0.17 | 9.0.18\n\n### \u003ca name=\".NET 8.0\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e.NET 8.0\nPackage name | Affected version | Patched version\n------------ | ---------------- | -------------------------\n[System.Security.Cryptography.Xml](https://www.nuget.org/packages/System.Security.Cryptography.Xml)               | \u003e= 8.0.0, \u003c= 8.0.3 | 8.0.4\n\n## Advisory FAQ\n\n### \u003ca name=\"how-affected\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eHow do I know if I am affected?\n\nIf using a package listed in [affected packages](#affected-packages), you\u0027re exposed to the vulnerability.\n\n### \u003ca name=\"how-fix\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eHow do I fix the issue?\n\nTo update the System.Security.Cryptography.Xml NuGet package, use one of the following methods:\n\nNuGet Package Manager UI in Visual Studio:\n- Open your project in Visual Studio.\n- Right-click on your project in Solution Explorer and select \"Manage NuGet Packages...\" or navigate to \"Project \u003e Manage NuGet Packages\".\n- In the NuGet Package Manager window, select the \"Updates\" tab. This tab lists packages with available updates from your configured package sources.\n- Select the package(s) you wish to update. You can choose a specific version from the dropdown or update to the latest available version.\n- Click the \"Update\" button.\n\nUsing the NuGet Package Manager Console in Visual Studio:\n- Open your project in Visual Studio.\n- Navigate to \"Tools \u003e NuGet Package Manager \u003e Package Manager Console\".\n- To update a specific package to its latest version, use the following Update-Package command:\n\n```Update-Package -Id System.Security.Cryptography.Xml```\n\nUsing the .NET CLI (Command Line Interface):\n- Open a terminal or command prompt in your project\u0027s directory.\n- To update a specific package to its latest version, use the following add package command:\n\n```dotnet add package System.Security.Cryptography.Xml```\n\nOnce you have updated the nuget package reference you must recompile and deploy your application. Additionally we recommend you update your runtime and/or SDKs, but it is not necessary to patch the vulnerability.\n\n## Other Information\n\n### Reporting Security Issues\n\nIf you have found a potential security issue in a supported version of .NET, please report it to the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) via the [MSRC Researcher Portal](https://msrc.microsoft.com/report/vulnerability/new). Further information can be found in the MSRC [Report an Issue FAQ](https://www.microsoft.com/msrc/faqs-report-an-issue).\n\nSecurity reports made through MSRC may qualify for the Microsoft .NET Bounty. Details of the Microsoft .NET Bounty Program including terms and conditions are at https://aka.ms/corebounty.\n\n### Support\n\nYou can ask questions about this issue on GitHub in the .NET GitHub organization. The main repos are located at https://github.com/dotnet/runtime. The Announcements repo (https://github.com/dotnet/Announcements) will contain this bulletin as an issue and will include a link to a discussion issue. You can ask questions in the linked discussion issue.\n\n### Disclaimer\n\nThe information provided in this advisory is provided \"as is\" without warranty of any kind. Microsoft disclaims all warranties, either express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall Microsoft Corporation or its suppliers be liable for any damages whatsoever including direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, loss of business profits or special damages, even if Microsoft Corporation or its suppliers have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages so the foregoing limitation may not apply.\n\n### External Links\n\n[CVE-2026-50648]( https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-50648)\n\n### Acknowledgements\n\n41ae55e9310ff27fa6f26af4727e5590\n\n### Revisions\n\nV1.0 (July 14, 2026): Advisory published.",
  "id": "GHSA-23rf-6693-g89p",
  "modified": "2026-07-21T17:28:07Z",
  "published": "2026-07-20T22:49:32Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/security/advisories/GHSA-23rf-6693-g89p"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-50648"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/dotnet/announcements/issues/419"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/130714"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/dotnet/runtime"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-50648"
    }
  ],
  "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": "Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-50648 \u2013 .NET Denial of Service Vulnerability"
}

GHSA-243V-98VX-264H

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-24 21:08 – Updated: 2026-02-27 20:25
VLAI
Summary
Wasmtime can panic when adding excessive fields to a `wasi:http/types.fields` instance
Details

Impact

Wasmtime's implementation of the wasi:http/types.fields resource is susceptible to panics when too many fields are added to the set of headers. Wasmtime's implementation in the wasmtime-wasi-http crate is backed by a data structure which panics when it reaches excessive capacity and this condition was not handled gracefully in Wasmtime. Panicking in a WASI implementation is a Denial of Service vector for embedders and is treated as a security vulnerability in Wasmtime.

Patches

Wasmtime 24.0.6, 36.0.6, 40.0.4, 41.0.4, and 42.0.0 patch this vulnerability and return a trap to the guest instead of panicking.

Workarounds

There are no known workarounds at this time, embedders are encouraged to update to a patched version of Wasmtime.

Resources

Severity
6.9 (Medium)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "wasmtime"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "24.0.6"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "wasmtime"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "25.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "36.0.6"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "wasmtime"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "37.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "40.0.4"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-27572"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-24T21:08:06Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-02-24T22:16:32Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\n\nWasmtime\u0027s implementation of the `wasi:http/types.fields` resource is susceptible to panics when too many fields are added to the set of headers. Wasmtime\u0027s implementation in the `wasmtime-wasi-http` crate is backed by a data structure which panics when it reaches excessive capacity and this condition was not handled gracefully in Wasmtime. Panicking in a WASI implementation is a Denial of Service vector for embedders and is treated as a security vulnerability in Wasmtime.\n\n### Patches\n\nWasmtime 24.0.6, 36.0.6, 40.0.4, 41.0.4, and 42.0.0 patch this vulnerability and return a trap to the guest instead of panicking.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nThere are no known workarounds at this time, embedders are encouraged to update to a patched version of Wasmtime.\n\n### Resources\n\n* [Limitations of `http::HeaderMap`](https://docs.rs/http/1.4.0/http/header/#limitations)",
  "id": "GHSA-243v-98vx-264h",
  "modified": "2026-02-27T20:25:44Z",
  "published": "2026-02-24T21:08:06Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/security/advisories/GHSA-243v-98vx-264h"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-27572"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/commit/301dc7162cca51def19131019af1187f45901c0a"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://docs.rs/http/1.4.0/http/header/#limitations"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/releases/tag/v24.0.6"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/releases/tag/v36.0.6"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/releases/tag/v40.0.4"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/releases/tag/v41.0.4"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0021.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Wasmtime can panic when adding excessive fields to a `wasi:http/types.fields` instance"
}

GHSA-2463-WG6R-R9MF

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-17 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-23 00:00
VLAI
Details

PNGDec commit 8abf6be was discovered to contain a memory allocation problem via asan_malloc_linux.cpp.

Severity
6.5 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-35009"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-08-16T21:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "PNGDec commit 8abf6be was discovered to contain a memory allocation problem via asan_malloc_linux.cpp.",
  "id": "GHSA-2463-wg6r-r9mf",
  "modified": "2022-08-23T00:00:16Z",
  "published": "2022-08-17T00:00:19Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-35009"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/bitbank2/PNGdec/issues/10"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-2497-GP99-2M74

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-20 16:30 – Updated: 2026-02-02 22:22
VLAI
Summary
Pterodactyl endlessly reprocesses/reuploads activity log data due to SQLite max parameters limit not being considered
Details

Summary

Wings does not consider SQLite max parameter limit when processing activity log entries allowing for low privileged user to trigger a condition that floods the panel with activity records

Details

After wings sends activity logs to the panel it deletes the processed activity entries from the wings SQLite database. However, it does not consider the max parameter limit of SQLite, 32766 as of SQLite 3.32.0.

If wings attempts to delete more than 32766 entries from the SQLite database in one query, it triggers an error (SQL logic error: too many SQL variables (1)) and does not remove any entries from the database. These entries are then indefinitely re-processed and resent to the panel each time the cron runs.

https://github.com/pterodactyl/wings/blob/9ffbcdcdb1163da823cf9959b9602df9f7dcb54a/internal/cron/activity_cron.go#L81 https://github.com/pterodactyl/wings/blob/9ffbcdcdb1163da823cf9959b9602df9f7dcb54a/internal/cron/sftp_cron.go#L86

PoC

Any method that can create the required 32767+ activity entries can trigger this vulnerability. It can (and has) been triggered by normal (non-malicious) use. I attached a simple PoC I used while verifying this that uses sftp to quickly create many small files, thus creating activity entries in the SQLite database. https://ptero.co/mococesoca.go

Impact

By successfully exploiting this vulnerability you can trigger a situation where wings will keep uploading the same activity data to the panel repeatedly (growing each time to include new activity) until the panels’ database server runs out of disk space.

Severity
6.5 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
8.3 (High)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/pterodactyl/wings"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "1.7.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.12.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-21696"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400",
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-01-20T16:30:54Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-01-19T20:15:49Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Summary \nWings does not consider SQLite max parameter limit when processing activity log entries allowing for low privileged user to trigger a condition that floods the panel with activity records \n\n### Details \nAfter wings sends activity logs to the panel it deletes the processed activity entries from the wings SQLite database. However, it does not consider the max parameter limit of SQLite, 32766 as of SQLite 3.32.0. \n\nIf wings attempts to delete more than 32766 entries from the SQLite database in one query, it triggers an error (SQL logic error: too many SQL variables (1)) and does not remove any entries from the database. These entries are then indefinitely re-processed and resent to the panel each time the cron runs. \n\nhttps://github.com/pterodactyl/wings/blob/9ffbcdcdb1163da823cf9959b9602df9f7dcb54a/internal/cron/activity_cron.go#L81\nhttps://github.com/pterodactyl/wings/blob/9ffbcdcdb1163da823cf9959b9602df9f7dcb54a/internal/cron/sftp_cron.go#L86\n\n### PoC \nAny method that can create the required 32767+ activity entries can trigger this vulnerability. It can (and has) been triggered by normal (non-malicious) use. I attached a simple PoC I used while verifying this that uses sftp to quickly create many small files, thus creating activity entries in the SQLite database. \nhttps://ptero.co/mococesoca.go\n\n\n  \n\n### Impact \nBy successfully exploiting this vulnerability you can trigger a situation where wings will keep uploading the same activity data to the panel repeatedly (growing each time to include new activity) until the panels\u2019 database server runs out of disk space.",
  "id": "GHSA-2497-gp99-2m74",
  "modified": "2026-02-02T22:22:03Z",
  "published": "2026-01-20T16:30:54Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pterodactyl/wings/security/advisories/GHSA-2497-gp99-2m74"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-21696"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pterodactyl/panel/commit/09caa0d4995bd924b53b9a9e9b4883ac27bd5607"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pterodactyl/panel/releases/tag/v1.12.0"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/pterodactyl/wings"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pterodactyl/wings/blob/9ffbcdcdb1163da823cf9959b9602df9f7dcb54a/internal/cron/activity_cron.go#L81"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pterodactyl/wings/blob/9ffbcdcdb1163da823cf9959b9602df9f7dcb54a/internal/cron/sftp_cron.go#L86"
    }
  ],
  "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:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Pterodactyl endlessly reprocesses/reuploads activity log data due to SQLite max parameters limit not being considered"
}

GHSA-24C8-4792-22HX

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-19 14:35 – Updated: 2026-06-29 15:43
VLAI
Summary
Scriban: array.insert_at index parameter DoS bypasses LoopLimit and LimitToString
Details

Summary

ArrayFunctions.InsertAt in Scriban allocates index - list.Count null entries in a tight C# for loop with no bound on index. The function is exposed to template authors as array.insert_at, and the fill loop ignores every existing safety control: LoopLimit, LimitToString, ObjectRecursionLimit, and RecursiveLimit. A single template such as {{ [1] | array.insert_at 200000000 'x' | array.size }} causes OutOfMemoryException in well under a second on a host with 1 GB of memory, even when LoopLimit is set to 10 and LimitToString is set to 100. Because OutOfMemoryException is generally not caught by the template renderer or by typical host applications, the vulnerability terminates the host process, not just the template.

This is a sibling vector to GHSA-xw6w-9jjh-p9cr / GHSA-c875-h985-hvrc / GHSA-v66j-x4hw-fv9g, which patched comparable unbounded primitives in string * int, array.size, array.join, string.pad_left, and string.pad_right. The 7.0.0 hardening pass (dde661d "Apply LoopLimit to internal iteration paths" and 4227fde "Harden string padding width limits") swept the equivalent loops in ArrayFunctions and StringFunctions but missed InsertAt.

Details

Reproducible in 7.1.0 (latest tag) and on master at c8094b0.

src/Scriban/Functions/ArrayFunctions.cs:369-386:

public static IEnumerable InsertAt(IEnumerable? list, int index, object? value)
{
    if (index < 0)
    {
        index = 0;
    }

    var array = list is null ? new ScriptArray() : new ScriptArray(list);
    // Make sure that the list has already inserted elements before the index
    for (int i = array.Count; i < index; i++)
    {
        array.Add(null);            // <-- unbounded fill, no StepLoop, no Limit*
    }

    array.Insert(index, value);

    return array;
}

The function is registered as the template builtin array.insert_at (array.fmt-cs and the standard ArrayFunctions ScriptObject reflection registration). It is invoked from a template like [1] | array.insert_at 999999999 "x".

Three properties combine to make this exploitable:

  1. There is no context-aware overload. Comparable amplification primitives in this same file received a (TemplateContext, SourceSpan, ...) overload that calls StepLoop per iteration (AddRange, Compact, Concat, Last, Limit, Offset, Reverse, Size, Sort, Uniq, Contains, Each, Filter, Join, Map, Any -- see commit dde661d). InsertAt was not given that treatment. The single IEnumerable, int, object signature is what the engine resolves to, so no host configuration changes its behaviour.

  2. The loop itself never consults context.LoopLimit, context.LimitToString, context.RecursiveLimit, or context.ObjectRecursionLimit. There is no upstream call into context.StepLoop, context.CheckAbort, or any guard. With index = 200_000_000, the C# loop calls ScriptArray.Add(null) 200 million times on a List<object> whose capacity doubles geometrically; the JIT-compiled tight loop reaches the .NET array allocator faster than the GC can keep up.

  3. OutOfMemoryException is the actual failure mode. Per Microsoft, OutOfMemoryException and friends are not reliably catchable by user code in production CLR runtimes; even when they are caught, large background allocations and triggered GC cycles leave the process in a degraded state. In the PoC below, the renderer wraps the OOM in a ScriptRuntimeException because the underlying allocation lands inside the renderer's try block, but on hosts that allocate the array slightly differently (e.g. tighter memory cap, server GC, or higher index value than the host has memory for) the bare OutOfMemoryException propagates and crashes the AppDomain.

The pattern that matches the existing fixes is to add a context-aware overload that validates index against LoopLimit (or LimitToString for the resulting array footprint) before the fill loop runs, and to mark the unsafe overload [ScriptMemberIgnore]:

[ScriptMemberIgnore]
public static IEnumerable InsertAt(IEnumerable list, int index, object value) { /* current body */ }

public static IEnumerable InsertAt(TemplateContext context, SourceSpan span, IEnumerable list, int index, object value)
{
    if (index < 0) index = 0;
    if (context.LoopLimit > 0 && index > context.LoopLimit)
    {
        throw new ScriptRuntimeException(span,
            $"array.insert_at index `{index}` exceeds LoopLimit `{context.LoopLimit}`.");
    }
    return InsertAt(list, index, value);
}

Same pattern as ArrayFunctions.AddRange, Compact, Concat, Last, Limit, etc., introduced by dde661d, and as StringFunctions.PadLeft/PadRight introduced by 4227fde.

PoC

Standalone .NET 9 console app referencing Scriban 7.1.0 from NuGet.

poc.csproj:

<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk">
  <PropertyGroup>
    <OutputType>Exe</OutputType>
    <TargetFramework>net9.0</TargetFramework>
  </PropertyGroup>
  <ItemGroup>
    <PackageReference Include="Scriban" Version="7.1.0" />
  </ItemGroup>
</Project>

Program.cs:

using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using Scriban;

class Program
{
    static void Run(string title, string template, int loopLimit, int limitToString, int timeoutSec)
    {
        Console.WriteLine($"\n=== {title} ===");
        var ctx = new TemplateContext { LoopLimit = loopLimit, LimitToString = limitToString };
        var tpl = Template.Parse(template);
        var sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
        try
        {
            var task = System.Threading.Tasks.Task.Run(() => tpl.Render(ctx));
            if (!task.Wait(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(timeoutSec)))
            {
                Console.WriteLine($"  TIMEOUT after {timeoutSec}s -- DoS confirmed");
                return;
            }
            Console.WriteLine($"  output={task.Result?.Length} chars in {sw.Elapsed.TotalSeconds:F2}s");
        }
        catch (AggregateException ex)
        {
            Console.WriteLine($"  EXCEPTION ({sw.Elapsed.TotalSeconds:F2}s): {ex.InnerException?.GetType().Name}: " +
                              $"{ex.InnerException?.Message?.Split('\n')[0]}");
        }
    }

    static void Main()
    {
        // Baseline: small index renders normally.
        Run("baseline",
            "{{ ([1] | array.insert_at 5 'x' | array.size) }}",
            loopLimit: 1000, limitToString: 1048576, timeoutSec: 5);

        // Exploit: 200M index. LoopLimit=10 and LimitToString=100 do NOT protect.
        Run("DoS via array.insert_at index=200_000_000",
            "{{ [1] | array.insert_at 200000000 'x' | array.size }}",
            loopLimit: 10, limitToString: 100, timeoutSec: 30);

        // Exploit: int.MaxValue.
        Run("DoS via array.insert_at index=int.MaxValue",
            "{{ [1] | array.insert_at 2147483647 'x' | array.size }}",
            loopLimit: 10, limitToString: 100, timeoutSec: 15);
    }
}

Build and run inside a memory-capped Docker container so the OOM is actual, not theoretical:

docker run --rm -v "$PWD":/app -w /app -m 1g mcr.microsoft.com/dotnet/sdk:9.0 \
    dotnet run -c Release

Observed output:

=== baseline ===
  output=1 chars in 0.01s

=== DoS via array.insert_at index=200_000_000 ===
  EXCEPTION (0.68s): ScriptRuntimeException: <input>(1,10) : error : Exception of type 'System.OutOfMemoryException' was thrown.

=== DoS via array.insert_at index=int.MaxValue ===
  EXCEPTION (0.52s): ScriptRuntimeException: <input>(1,10) : error : Exception of type 'System.OutOfMemoryException' was thrown.

Two observations:

  • The exploit triggers in roughly 600 ms inside a 1 GB container. Increasing the host memory simply moves the OOM threshold; the malicious template still wedges the process for the duration of the allocation and the resulting GC pressure, which is itself a denial of service even when the OOM is suppressed.
  • Setting LoopLimit = 10 and LimitToString = 100 (effectively the most paranoid tuning a host could pick) makes no difference. The fill loop is in compiled C#, never goes through StepLoop, and the result is a ScriptArray, not a string, so LimitToString is never consulted.

Impact

Denial of service against any host that renders attacker-controlled or attacker-influenced Scriban templates. This includes the canonical Scriban use cases the README itself lists -- email templating, report templating, in-CMS templating, and Statiq-style static site generators where the template content is part of the data ingested. A single one-line template payload is enough to either OOM the process outright (when the host gives the renderer enough memory headroom for the loop to actually finish) or to wedge the process for tens of seconds while the allocator and GC fight (when memory is tight). On ASP.NET hosts using app.UseScriban-style middleware or background workers running per-tenant templates, the OOM terminates the entire process, taking down all tenants.

Severity is consistent with the four DoS GHSAs already published against Scriban (GHSA-xw6w-9jjh-p9cr High 7.5, GHSA-c875-h985-hvrc High 7.5, GHSA-v66j-x4hw-fv9g High 7.5, GHSA-m2p3-hwv5-xpqw High 7.5). The attack vector, complexity, and impact are identical: network reachable, low complexity, no privileges, no user interaction, full availability impact, no confidentiality or integrity impact. CVSS 4.0 vector: 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 (High, 8.7).

Severity
8.7 (High)
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
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 7.1.0"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "NuGet",
        "name": "scriban"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "7.2.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 7.1.0"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "NuGet",
        "name": "Scriban.Signed"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "7.2.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-19T14:35:25Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\n`ArrayFunctions.InsertAt` in Scriban allocates `index - list.Count` null entries in a tight C# `for` loop with no bound on `index`. The function is exposed to template authors as `array.insert_at`, and the fill loop ignores every existing safety control: `LoopLimit`, `LimitToString`, `ObjectRecursionLimit`, and `RecursiveLimit`. A single template such as `{{ [1] | array.insert_at 200000000 \u0027x\u0027 | array.size }}` causes `OutOfMemoryException` in well under a second on a host with 1 GB of memory, even when `LoopLimit` is set to `10` and `LimitToString` is set to `100`. Because `OutOfMemoryException` is generally not caught by the template renderer or by typical host applications, the vulnerability terminates the host process, not just the template.\n\nThis is a sibling vector to GHSA-xw6w-9jjh-p9cr / GHSA-c875-h985-hvrc / GHSA-v66j-x4hw-fv9g, which patched comparable unbounded primitives in `string * int`, `array.size`, `array.join`, `string.pad_left`, and `string.pad_right`. The 7.0.0 hardening pass (`dde661d` \"Apply LoopLimit to internal iteration paths\" and `4227fde` \"Harden string padding width limits\") swept the equivalent loops in `ArrayFunctions` and `StringFunctions` but missed `InsertAt`.\n\n## Details\n\nReproducible in 7.1.0 (latest tag) and on `master` at `c8094b0`.\n\n`src/Scriban/Functions/ArrayFunctions.cs:369-386`:\n\n```csharp\npublic static IEnumerable InsertAt(IEnumerable? list, int index, object? value)\n{\n    if (index \u003c 0)\n    {\n        index = 0;\n    }\n\n    var array = list is null ? new ScriptArray() : new ScriptArray(list);\n    // Make sure that the list has already inserted elements before the index\n    for (int i = array.Count; i \u003c index; i++)\n    {\n        array.Add(null);            // \u003c-- unbounded fill, no StepLoop, no Limit*\n    }\n\n    array.Insert(index, value);\n\n    return array;\n}\n```\n\nThe function is registered as the template builtin `array.insert_at` (`array.fmt-cs` and the standard `ArrayFunctions` ScriptObject reflection registration). It is invoked from a template like `[1] | array.insert_at 999999999 \"x\"`.\n\nThree properties combine to make this exploitable:\n\n1. There is no context-aware overload. Comparable amplification primitives in this same file received a `(TemplateContext, SourceSpan, ...)` overload that calls `StepLoop` per iteration (`AddRange`, `Compact`, `Concat`, `Last`, `Limit`, `Offset`, `Reverse`, `Size`, `Sort`, `Uniq`, `Contains`, `Each`, `Filter`, `Join`, `Map`, `Any` -- see commit `dde661d`). `InsertAt` was not given that treatment. The single `IEnumerable, int, object` signature is what the engine resolves to, so no host configuration changes its behaviour.\n\n2. The loop itself never consults `context.LoopLimit`, `context.LimitToString`, `context.RecursiveLimit`, or `context.ObjectRecursionLimit`. There is no upstream call into `context.StepLoop`, `context.CheckAbort`, or any guard. With `index = 200_000_000`, the C# loop calls `ScriptArray.Add(null)` 200 million times on a `List\u003cobject\u003e` whose capacity doubles geometrically; the JIT-compiled tight loop reaches the .NET array allocator faster than the GC can keep up.\n\n3. `OutOfMemoryException` is the actual failure mode. Per Microsoft, `OutOfMemoryException` and friends are not reliably catchable by user code in production CLR runtimes; even when they are caught, large background allocations and triggered GC cycles leave the process in a degraded state. In the PoC below, the renderer wraps the OOM in a `ScriptRuntimeException` because the underlying allocation lands inside the renderer\u0027s try block, but on hosts that allocate the array slightly differently (e.g. tighter memory cap, server GC, or higher index value than the host has memory for) the bare `OutOfMemoryException` propagates and crashes the AppDomain.\n\nThe pattern that matches the existing fixes is to add a context-aware overload that validates `index` against `LoopLimit` (or `LimitToString` for the resulting array footprint) before the fill loop runs, and to mark the unsafe overload `[ScriptMemberIgnore]`:\n\n```csharp\n[ScriptMemberIgnore]\npublic static IEnumerable InsertAt(IEnumerable list, int index, object value) { /* current body */ }\n\npublic static IEnumerable InsertAt(TemplateContext context, SourceSpan span, IEnumerable list, int index, object value)\n{\n    if (index \u003c 0) index = 0;\n    if (context.LoopLimit \u003e 0 \u0026\u0026 index \u003e context.LoopLimit)\n    {\n        throw new ScriptRuntimeException(span,\n            $\"array.insert_at index `{index}` exceeds LoopLimit `{context.LoopLimit}`.\");\n    }\n    return InsertAt(list, index, value);\n}\n```\n\nSame pattern as `ArrayFunctions.AddRange`, `Compact`, `Concat`, `Last`, `Limit`, etc., introduced by `dde661d`, and as `StringFunctions.PadLeft`/`PadRight` introduced by `4227fde`.\n\n## PoC\n\nStandalone .NET 9 console app referencing `Scriban` 7.1.0 from NuGet.\n\n`poc.csproj`:\n\n```xml\n\u003cProject Sdk=\"Microsoft.NET.Sdk\"\u003e\n  \u003cPropertyGroup\u003e\n    \u003cOutputType\u003eExe\u003c/OutputType\u003e\n    \u003cTargetFramework\u003enet9.0\u003c/TargetFramework\u003e\n  \u003c/PropertyGroup\u003e\n  \u003cItemGroup\u003e\n    \u003cPackageReference Include=\"Scriban\" Version=\"7.1.0\" /\u003e\n  \u003c/ItemGroup\u003e\n\u003c/Project\u003e\n```\n\n`Program.cs`:\n\n```csharp\nusing System;\nusing System.Diagnostics;\nusing Scriban;\n\nclass Program\n{\n    static void Run(string title, string template, int loopLimit, int limitToString, int timeoutSec)\n    {\n        Console.WriteLine($\"\\n=== {title} ===\");\n        var ctx = new TemplateContext { LoopLimit = loopLimit, LimitToString = limitToString };\n        var tpl = Template.Parse(template);\n        var sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();\n        try\n        {\n            var task = System.Threading.Tasks.Task.Run(() =\u003e tpl.Render(ctx));\n            if (!task.Wait(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(timeoutSec)))\n            {\n                Console.WriteLine($\"  TIMEOUT after {timeoutSec}s -- DoS confirmed\");\n                return;\n            }\n            Console.WriteLine($\"  output={task.Result?.Length} chars in {sw.Elapsed.TotalSeconds:F2}s\");\n        }\n        catch (AggregateException ex)\n        {\n            Console.WriteLine($\"  EXCEPTION ({sw.Elapsed.TotalSeconds:F2}s): {ex.InnerException?.GetType().Name}: \" +\n                              $\"{ex.InnerException?.Message?.Split(\u0027\\n\u0027)[0]}\");\n        }\n    }\n\n    static void Main()\n    {\n        // Baseline: small index renders normally.\n        Run(\"baseline\",\n            \"{{ ([1] | array.insert_at 5 \u0027x\u0027 | array.size) }}\",\n            loopLimit: 1000, limitToString: 1048576, timeoutSec: 5);\n\n        // Exploit: 200M index. LoopLimit=10 and LimitToString=100 do NOT protect.\n        Run(\"DoS via array.insert_at index=200_000_000\",\n            \"{{ [1] | array.insert_at 200000000 \u0027x\u0027 | array.size }}\",\n            loopLimit: 10, limitToString: 100, timeoutSec: 30);\n\n        // Exploit: int.MaxValue.\n        Run(\"DoS via array.insert_at index=int.MaxValue\",\n            \"{{ [1] | array.insert_at 2147483647 \u0027x\u0027 | array.size }}\",\n            loopLimit: 10, limitToString: 100, timeoutSec: 15);\n    }\n}\n```\n\nBuild and run inside a memory-capped Docker container so the OOM is actual, not theoretical:\n\n```bash\ndocker run --rm -v \"$PWD\":/app -w /app -m 1g mcr.microsoft.com/dotnet/sdk:9.0 \\\n    dotnet run -c Release\n```\n\nObserved output:\n\n```\n=== baseline ===\n  output=1 chars in 0.01s\n\n=== DoS via array.insert_at index=200_000_000 ===\n  EXCEPTION (0.68s): ScriptRuntimeException: \u003cinput\u003e(1,10) : error : Exception of type \u0027System.OutOfMemoryException\u0027 was thrown.\n\n=== DoS via array.insert_at index=int.MaxValue ===\n  EXCEPTION (0.52s): ScriptRuntimeException: \u003cinput\u003e(1,10) : error : Exception of type \u0027System.OutOfMemoryException\u0027 was thrown.\n```\n\nTwo observations:\n\n- The exploit triggers in roughly 600 ms inside a 1 GB container. Increasing the host memory simply moves the OOM threshold; the malicious template still wedges the process for the duration of the allocation and the resulting GC pressure, which is itself a denial of service even when the OOM is suppressed.\n- Setting `LoopLimit = 10` and `LimitToString = 100` (effectively the most paranoid tuning a host could pick) makes no difference. The fill loop is in compiled C#, never goes through `StepLoop`, and the result is a `ScriptArray`, not a string, so `LimitToString` is never consulted.\n\n## Impact\n\nDenial of service against any host that renders attacker-controlled or attacker-influenced Scriban templates. This includes the canonical Scriban use cases the README itself lists -- email templating, report templating, in-CMS templating, and Statiq-style static site generators where the template content is part of the data ingested. A single one-line template payload is enough to either OOM the process outright (when the host gives the renderer enough memory headroom for the loop to actually finish) or to wedge the process for tens of seconds while the allocator and GC fight (when memory is tight). On ASP.NET hosts using `app.UseScriban`-style middleware or background workers running per-tenant templates, the OOM terminates the entire process, taking down all tenants.\n\nSeverity is consistent with the four DoS GHSAs already published against Scriban (`GHSA-xw6w-9jjh-p9cr` High 7.5, `GHSA-c875-h985-hvrc` High 7.5, `GHSA-v66j-x4hw-fv9g` High 7.5, `GHSA-m2p3-hwv5-xpqw` High 7.5). The attack vector, complexity, and impact are identical: network reachable, low complexity, no privileges, no user interaction, full availability impact, no confidentiality or integrity impact. CVSS 4.0 vector: `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` (High, 8.7).",
  "id": "GHSA-24c8-4792-22hx",
  "modified": "2026-06-29T15:43:46Z",
  "published": "2026-05-19T14:35:25Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/scriban/scriban/security/advisories/GHSA-24c8-4792-22hx"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/scriban/scriban"
    }
  ],
  "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": "Scriban: array.insert_at index parameter DoS bypasses LoopLimit and LimitToString"
}

GHSA-24M8-VM8V-RRFV

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:44 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:44
VLAI
Details

A stack overflow in pupnp 1.16.1 can cause the denial of service through the Parser_parseDocument() function. ixmlNode_free() will release a child node recursively, which will consume stack space and lead to a crash.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-28302"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770",
      "CWE-776"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-03-12T15:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A stack overflow in pupnp 1.16.1 can cause the denial of service through the Parser_parseDocument() function. ixmlNode_free() will release a child node recursively, which will consume stack space and lead to a crash.",
  "id": "GHSA-24m8-vm8v-rrfv",
  "modified": "2022-05-24T17:44:31Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T17:44:31Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-28302"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pupnp/pupnp/issues/249"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pupnp/pupnp/releases/tag/release-1.14.5"
    }
  ],
  "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-24MV-C2PP-2Q4F

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:14 – Updated: 2024-03-08 00:33
VLAI
Details

In Node.js including 6.x before 6.17.0, 8.x before 8.15.1, 10.x before 10.15.2, and 11.x before 11.10.1, an attacker can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) by establishing an HTTP or HTTPS connection in keep-alive mode and by sending headers very slowly. This keeps the connection and associated resources alive for a long period of time. Potential attacks are mitigated by the use of a load balancer or other proxy layer. This vulnerability is an extension of CVE-2018-12121, addressed in November and impacts all active Node.js release lines including 6.x before 6.17.0, 8.x before 8.15.1, 10.x before 10.15.2, and 11.x before 11.10.1.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2019-5737"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400",
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2019-03-28T17:29:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "In Node.js including 6.x before 6.17.0, 8.x before 8.15.1, 10.x before 10.15.2, and 11.x before 11.10.1, an attacker can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) by establishing an HTTP or HTTPS connection in keep-alive mode and by sending headers very slowly. This keeps the connection and associated resources alive for a long period of time. Potential attacks are mitigated by the use of a load balancer or other proxy layer. This vulnerability is an extension of CVE-2018-12121, addressed in November and impacts all active Node.js release lines including 6.x before 6.17.0, 8.x before 8.15.1, 10.x before 10.15.2, and 11.x before 11.10.1.",
  "id": "GHSA-24mv-c2pp-2q4f",
  "modified": "2024-03-08T00:33:36Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:14:31Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-5737"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1821"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://nodejs.org/en/blog/vulnerability/february-2019-security-releases"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202003-48"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20190502-0008"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-03/msg00041.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-04/msg00046.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-04/msg00059.html"
    }
  ],
  "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-24Q2-4VQQ-QCX6

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-05 09:30 – Updated: 2026-02-23 09:31
VLAI
Details

User-controlled operations could have allowed Denial of Service in M-Files Server before 23.4.12528.1 due to uncontrolled memory consumption.

Severity
6.5 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-0382"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400",
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-04-05T07:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "User-controlled operations could have allowed Denial of Service in M-Files Server before 23.4.12528.1 due to uncontrolled memory consumption.",
  "id": "GHSA-24q2-4vqq-qcx6",
  "modified": "2026-02-23T09:31:17Z",
  "published": "2023-04-05T09:30:18Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-0382"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://empower.m-files.com/security-advisories/CVE-2023-0382"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://product.m-files.com/security-advisories/cve-2023-0382"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.m-files.com/about/trust-center/security-advisories/cve-2023-0382"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}
Mitigation
Requirements

Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.

Mitigation
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design

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
Implementation

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
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design
  • Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
  • 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.
  • 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.
Mitigation
Architecture and Design

Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.

Mitigation MIT-38.1
Architecture and Design Implementation
  • 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
Operation Architecture and Design

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.

← Back to the CWE list