CWE-770
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.
3908 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-2FVW-QMCC-8M37
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-20 18:31 – Updated: 2025-02-20 18:31An issue was discovered in Atos Eviden BullSequana XH2140 BMC before C4EM-125: OMF_C4E 101.05.0014. Some BullSequana XH products were shipped without proper hardware programming, leading to a potential denial-of-service with privileged access.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-46933"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-20T18:15:25Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Atos Eviden BullSequana XH2140 BMC before C4EM-125: OMF_C4E 101.05.0014. Some BullSequana XH products were shipped without proper hardware programming, leading to a potential denial-of-service with privileged access.",
"id": "GHSA-2fvw-qmcc-8m37",
"modified": "2025-02-20T18:31:24Z",
"published": "2025-02-20T18:31:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-46933"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://eviden.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.bull.com/ols/product/security/psirt/security-bulletins/ast2600-left-unconfigured-in-bullsequana-xh2140-psirt-270-tlp-clear-version-2-7-cve-2024-46933/view"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2G4W-XQHX-J2X8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:21 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:21OpenSource Moddable v10.5.0 was discovered to contain a stack overflow via the component /moddable/xs/sources/xsScript.c.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-29324"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770",
"CWE-787"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-11-19T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "OpenSource Moddable v10.5.0 was discovered to contain a stack overflow via the component /moddable/xs/sources/xsScript.c.",
"id": "GHSA-2g4w-xqhx-j2x8",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:21:08Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:21:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-29324"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Moddable-OpenSource/moddable/issues/586"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2G9X-R8W8-QJFF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-21 12:30 – Updated: 2026-08-21 12:30The MCP Streamable HTTP server transport (WebFlux and WebMvc variants) does not place any limit on the number of sessions it retains, and by default does not require clients to be authenticated. As a result, a remote attacker can cause the server to accumulate an unbounded number of sessions over time, gradually exhausting available memory and ultimately causing a Denial of Service that affects all legitimate clients. Affected versions: Spring AI: 2.0.0
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-59279"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-21T12:16:30Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The MCP Streamable HTTP server transport (WebFlux and WebMvc variants) does not place any limit on the number of sessions it retains, and by default does not require clients to be authenticated. As a result, a remote attacker can cause the server to accumulate an unbounded number of sessions over time, gradually exhausting available memory and ultimately causing a Denial of Service that affects all legitimate clients.\nAffected versions:\nSpring AI: 2.0.0",
"id": "GHSA-2g9x-r8w8-qjff",
"modified": "2026-08-21T12:30:33Z",
"published": "2026-08-21T12:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-59279"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://spring.io/security/cve-2026-59279"
}
],
"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-2GCH-6FPV-FJXP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-13 00:30 – Updated: 2023-01-13 00:30An Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in the Packet Forwarding Engine (PFE) of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows a network-based, unauthenticated attacker to cause a Denial of Service (DoS). On QFX10k Series Inter-Chassis Control Protocol (ICCP) is used in MC-LAG topologies to exchange control information between the devices in the topology. ICCP connection flaps and sync issues will be observed due to excessive specific traffic to the local device. This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS: All versions prior to 20.2R3-S7; 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R3-S4; 21.1 versions prior to 21.1R3-S3; 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R3-S1; 21.3 versions prior to 21.3R3; 21.4 versions prior to 21.4R3; 22.1 versions prior to 22.1R2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-22403"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-13T00:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in the Packet Forwarding Engine (PFE) of Juniper Networks Junos OS allows a network-based, unauthenticated attacker to cause a Denial of Service (DoS). On QFX10k Series Inter-Chassis Control Protocol (ICCP) is used in MC-LAG topologies to exchange control information between the devices in the topology. ICCP connection flaps and sync issues will be observed due to excessive specific traffic to the local device. This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS: All versions prior to 20.2R3-S7; 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R3-S4; 21.1 versions prior to 21.1R3-S3; 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R3-S1; 21.3 versions prior to 21.3R3; 21.4 versions prior to 21.4R3; 22.1 versions prior to 22.1R2.",
"id": "GHSA-2gch-6fpv-fjxp",
"modified": "2023-01-13T00:30:37Z",
"published": "2023-01-13T00:30:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-22403"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kb.juniper.net/JSA70199"
}
],
"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-2GG5-7C4V-6XX2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-15 00:00 – Updated: 2022-09-19 20:19Duplicate advisory
This advisory is a duplicate of GHSA-m77f-652q-wwp4. This link is maintained to preserve external references.
Original Description
::from_request would not, by default, set a limit for the size of the request body. That meant if a malicious peer would send a very large (or infinite) body your server might run out of memory and crash. This also applies to these extractors which used Bytes::from_request internally: axum::extract::Form axum::extract::Json String
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "axum-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.2.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "axum-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.3.0-rc.1"
},
{
"fixed": "0.3.0-rc.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"0.3.0-rc.1"
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-09-16T20:59:09Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-14T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Duplicate advisory\nThis advisory is a duplicate of [GHSA-m77f-652q-wwp4](https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-m77f-652q-wwp4). This link is maintained to preserve external references.\n\n## Original Description\n\u003cbytes::Bytes as axum_core::extract::FromRequest\u003e::from_request would not, by default, set a limit for the size of the request body. That meant if a malicious peer would send a very large (or infinite) body your server might run out of memory and crash. This also applies to these extractors which used Bytes::from_request internally: axum::extract::Form axum::extract::Json String",
"id": "GHSA-2gg5-7c4v-6xx2",
"modified": "2022-09-19T20:19:08Z",
"published": "2022-09-15T00:00:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-3212"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://research.jfrog.com/vulnerabilities/axum-core-dos"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2022-0055.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"
}
],
"summary": "Duplicate of GHSA-m77f-652q-wwp4",
"withdrawn": "2022-09-16T20:59:09Z"
}
GHSA-2GH3-RMM4-6RQ5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-07 20:02 – Updated: 2025-08-01 19:20Affected version of this crate did not properly parse unknown fields when parsing a user-supplied input.
This allows an attacker to cause a stack overflow when parsing the message on untrusted data.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "protobuf"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.7.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-53605"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-03-07T20:02:37Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Affected version of this crate did not properly parse unknown fields when parsing a user-supplied input.\n\nThis allows an attacker to cause a stack overflow when parsing the message on untrusted data.",
"id": "GHSA-2gh3-rmm4-6rq5",
"modified": "2025-08-01T19:20:19Z",
"published": "2025-03-07T20:02:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-53605"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/stepancheg/rust-protobuf/issues/749"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/stepancheg/rust-protobuf/commit/f06992f46771c0a092593b9ebf7afd48740b3ed6"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/stepancheg/rust-protobuf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2024-0437.html"
}
],
"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/E:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Crash due to uncontrolled recursion in protobuf crate"
}
GHSA-2GPW-MVHV-QQ99
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-02 12:31 – Updated: 2026-10-02 12:31Allocation of resources without limits or throttling, Initialization of a resource with an insecure default vulnerability in Apache Thrift Python bindings.
This issue affects Apache Thrift: before 0.25.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 0.25.0, which fixes the issue.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-94634"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-02T10:17:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Allocation of resources without limits or throttling, Initialization of a resource with an insecure default vulnerability in Apache Thrift Python bindings.\n\n\n\nThis issue affects Apache Thrift: before 0.25.0.\n\n\n\nUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 0.25.0, which fixes the issue.",
"id": "GHSA-2gpw-mvhv-qq99",
"modified": "2026-10-02T12:31:11Z",
"published": "2026-10-02T12:31:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-94634"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/33otcgbqd27wf6qq810q56znzbomnhg1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/dgy8ox9t4bh1xhf74ovf29ht87x7dno4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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-2GQ5-RPFX-46R3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:02 – Updated: 2026-06-02 21:30A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC HMI Comfort Outdoor Panels 7\" & 15\" (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V16 Update 4), SIMATIC HMI Comfort Panels 4\" - 22\" (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V16 Update 4), SIMATIC HMI KTP Mobile Panels KTP400F, KTP700, KTP700F, KTP900 and KTP900F (All versions < V16 Update 4), SIMATIC WinCC Runtime Advanced (All versions < V16 Update 4). SmartVNC has a heap allocation leak vulnerability in the server Tight encoder, which could result in a Denial-of-Service condition.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-27383"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-119",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-05-12T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC HMI Comfort Outdoor Panels 7\\\" \u0026 15\\\" (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions \u003c V16 Update 4), SIMATIC HMI Comfort Panels 4\\\" - 22\\\" (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions \u003c V16 Update 4), SIMATIC HMI KTP Mobile Panels KTP400F, KTP700, KTP700F, KTP900 and KTP900F (All versions \u003c V16 Update 4), SIMATIC WinCC Runtime Advanced (All versions \u003c V16 Update 4). SmartVNC has a heap allocation leak vulnerability in the server Tight encoder, which could result in a Denial-of-Service condition.",
"id": "GHSA-2gq5-rpfx-46r3",
"modified": "2026-06-02T21:30:32Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:02:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-27383"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-286838.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-538778.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ics/advisories/icsa-21-131-12"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2GX3-RCP4-G85Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-29 23:11 – Updated: 2026-09-29 23:11Summary CVE-2026-48524 (GHSA-fhv5-28vv-h8m8, "PyJWKClient unbounded JWKS endpoint requests via attacker-controlled kid values (DoS)") was fixed in 2.13.0 by stopping fetch_data() from clearing the cache on a fetch error. That closed one amplification path but did not add the mitigation the advisory's title implies: there is still no rate-limit, negative-cache, or minimum-refresh-interval for unknown kids.
At HEAD, get_signing_key(kid) (jwt/jwks_client.py:185-211), on any unknown kid, calls get_signing_keys(refresh=True), and refresh=True bypasses jwk_set_cache unconditionally and forces a fresh fetch_data(). The kid is read from the unverified token header (get_signing_key_from_jwt decodes with verify_signature=False), so no valid token and no authentication is required. lru_cache does not cache the raised exception, so even the same unknown kid repeated re-fetches on every call.
Affected pyjwt <= 2.13.0 (the latest release; the patched release for CVE-2026-48524). No fixed version yet.
Proof of concept (verified on 2.13.0, cache enabled = realistic prod config) import threading, http.server, socketserver, json from jwt import PyJWKClient hits = {'n': 0} JWKS = json.dumps({"keys":[{"kty":"oct","kid":"real","k":"AAAA"}]}).encode() class H(http.server.BaseHTTPRequestHandler): def do_GET(self): hits['n'] += 1 self.send_response(200); self.send_header('Content-Type','application/json'); self.end_headers() self.wfile.write(JWKS) def log_message(self,*a): pass srv = socketserver.TCPServer(('127.0.0.1',0), H); port = srv.server_address[1] threading.Thread(target=srv.serve_forever, daemon=True).start() c = PyJWKClient(f'http://127.0.0.1/:{port}/jwks.json', cache_keys=True, lifespan=3600) for i in range(8): try: c.get_signing_key(f'attacker-unknown-kid-{i}') except Exception: pass before = hits['n'] for _ in range(5): try: c.get_signing_key('same-unknown') except Exception: pass print('distinct unknown kids: 8 -> fetches:', hits['n']) print('same unknown kid x5 -> extra fetches:', hits['n'] - before)
Output: distinct unknown kids: 8 -> fetches: 9 same unknown kid x5 -> extra fetches: 5 Each unknown kid forces a fresh JWKS fetch; a repeated identical unknown kid still re-fetches every time against an unexpired cache. No rate-limit or negative-cache.
Impact One unauthenticated request -> one outbound JWKS HTTP fetch + full JSON parse on the victim server. An attacker floods tokens carrying junk kids, so the victim hammers its own JWKS/IdP endpoint (amplification: attacker -> victim -> IdP), exhausting victim CPU/sockets and potentially tripping the JWKS provider's rate-limit, causing an application-wide auth outage. This is the unauthenticated DoS the parent advisory is named for, still reachable after the 2.13.0 fix.
Suggested fix Guard the forced refresh on unknown kids: negative-cache unknown kids for a short TTL, or enforce a minimum interval between forced JWKS refreshes, so a repeated or unknown kid cannot force unbounded fetches.
Note: the same-kid-repeated result (5 identical unknown kids producing 5 fetches against an unexpired cache) shows this is request amplification, not legitimate key-rotation handling, since that refresh can never succeed.
Reported by Babakizo (Securva).
Maintainer update — 2026-09-10
The maintainer confirmed the reported behavior against PyJWT 2.13.0. With JWKS caching
enabled, an unknown kid previously forced an unconditional JWKS refresh,
including when the same unknown value was repeated while the cached key set was
still valid. This allowed unauthenticated token headers to cause unnecessary
outbound JWKS requests and repeated parsing work.
The fix is now on master in commit ba4853a. PyJWKClient now applies a
30-second cooldown after successful JWKS fetches before permitting another
unknown-kid refresh, serializes concurrent refresh decisions per client, and
allows callers to configure or disable the cooldown. Cache-disabled behavior
and immediate retry after failed fetches remain unchanged.
Regression tests cover repeated unknown kids, cooldown expiry, concurrent misses, cache-disabled operation, and invalid cooldown values. The available full tox matrix, Ruff, and mypy checks pass. The fix will be included in the next released 2.x version.
Maintainer update — 2026-09-11
The verified fix for this advisory is included in PyJWT 2.14.0, released on 2026-09-11 and available on PyPI. PyJWT 2.14.0 is the first release containing the fix. This advisory is now published with 2.14.0 recorded as the patched version.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.13.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "pyjwt"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.14.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-101917"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-29T23:11:51Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-28T21:17:13Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Summary\nCVE-2026-48524 (GHSA-fhv5-28vv-h8m8, \"PyJWKClient unbounded JWKS endpoint requests via attacker-controlled kid values (DoS)\") was fixed in 2.13.0 by stopping fetch_data() from clearing the cache on a fetch error. That closed one amplification path but did not add the mitigation the advisory\u0027s title implies: there is still no rate-limit, negative-cache, or minimum-refresh-interval for unknown kids.\n\nAt HEAD, get_signing_key(kid) (jwt/jwks_client.py:185-211), on any unknown kid, calls get_signing_keys(refresh=True), and refresh=True bypasses jwk_set_cache unconditionally and forces a fresh fetch_data(). The kid is read from the unverified token header (get_signing_key_from_jwt decodes with verify_signature=False), so no valid token and no authentication is required. lru_cache does not cache the raised exception, so even the same unknown kid repeated re-fetches on every call.\n\nAffected\npyjwt \u003c= 2.13.0 (the latest release; the patched release for CVE-2026-48524). No fixed version yet.\n\nProof of concept (verified on 2.13.0, cache enabled = realistic prod config)\nimport threading, http.server, socketserver, json\nfrom jwt import PyJWKClient\nhits = {\u0027n\u0027: 0}\nJWKS = json.dumps({\"keys\":[{\"kty\":\"oct\",\"kid\":\"real\",\"k\":\"AAAA\"}]}).encode()\nclass H(http.server.BaseHTTPRequestHandler):\n def do_GET(self):\n hits[\u0027n\u0027] += 1\n self.send_response(200); self.send_header(\u0027Content-Type\u0027,\u0027application/json\u0027); self.end_headers()\n self.wfile.write(JWKS)\n def log_message(self,*a): pass\nsrv = socketserver.TCPServer((\u0027[127.0.0.1](https://127.0.0.1/)\u0027,0), H); port = srv.server_address[1]\nthreading.Thread(target=srv.serve_forever, daemon=True).start()\nc = PyJWKClient(f\u0027http://127.0.0.1/:{port}[/jwks](tg://bot_command?command=jwks).json\u0027, cache_keys=True, lifespan=3600)\nfor i in range(8):\n try: c.get_signing_key(f\u0027attacker-unknown-kid-{i}\u0027)\n except Exception: pass\nbefore = hits[\u0027n\u0027]\nfor _ in range(5):\n try: c.get_signing_key(\u0027same-unknown\u0027)\n except Exception: pass\nprint(\u0027distinct unknown kids: 8 -\u003e fetches:\u0027, hits[\u0027n\u0027])\nprint(\u0027same unknown kid x5 -\u003e extra fetches:\u0027, hits[\u0027n\u0027] - before)\n\nOutput:\n distinct unknown kids: 8 -\u003e fetches: 9\n same unknown kid x5 -\u003e extra fetches: 5\nEach unknown kid forces a fresh JWKS fetch; a repeated identical unknown kid still re-fetches every time against an unexpired cache. No rate-limit or negative-cache.\n\nImpact\nOne unauthenticated request -\u003e one outbound JWKS HTTP fetch + full JSON parse on the victim server. An attacker floods tokens carrying junk kids, so the victim hammers its own JWKS/IdP endpoint (amplification: attacker -\u003e victim -\u003e IdP), exhausting victim CPU/sockets and potentially tripping the JWKS provider\u0027s rate-limit, causing an application-wide auth outage. This is the unauthenticated DoS the parent advisory is named for, still reachable after the 2.13.0 fix.\n\nSuggested fix\nGuard the forced refresh on unknown kids: negative-cache unknown kids for a short TTL, or enforce a minimum interval between forced JWKS refreshes, so a repeated or unknown kid cannot force unbounded fetches.\n\nNote: the same-kid-repeated result (5 identical unknown kids producing 5 fetches against an unexpired cache) shows this is request amplification, not legitimate key-rotation handling, since that refresh can never succeed.\n\nReported by Babakizo (Securva).\n\n## Maintainer update \u2014 2026-09-10\n\nThe maintainer confirmed the reported behavior against PyJWT 2.13.0. With JWKS caching\nenabled, an unknown `kid` previously forced an unconditional JWKS refresh,\nincluding when the same unknown value was repeated while the cached key set was\nstill valid. This allowed unauthenticated token headers to cause unnecessary\noutbound JWKS requests and repeated parsing work.\n\nThe fix is now on `master` in commit `ba4853a`. `PyJWKClient` now applies a\n30-second cooldown after successful JWKS fetches before permitting another\nunknown-`kid` refresh, serializes concurrent refresh decisions per client, and\nallows callers to configure or disable the cooldown. Cache-disabled behavior\nand immediate retry after failed fetches remain unchanged.\n\nRegression tests cover repeated unknown kids, cooldown expiry, concurrent\nmisses, cache-disabled operation, and invalid cooldown values. The available\nfull tox matrix, Ruff, and mypy checks pass. The fix will be included in the\nnext released 2.x version.\n\n## Maintainer update \u2014 2026-09-11\n\nThe verified fix for this advisory is included in PyJWT 2.14.0, released on 2026-09-11 and available on PyPI. PyJWT 2.14.0 is the first release containing the fix. This advisory is now published with 2.14.0 recorded as the patched version.",
"id": "GHSA-2gx3-rcp4-g85q",
"modified": "2026-09-29T23:11:51Z",
"published": "2026-09-29T23:11:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt/security/advisories/GHSA-2gx3-rcp4-g85q"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-101917"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt/commit/ba4853a75fb9676362da17f67d0f64bd18afd4e1"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt/releases/tag/2.14.0"
}
],
"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": "PyJWT: PyJWKClient still amplifies unauthenticated JWKS fetches on unknown kid values (incomplete fix of CVE-2026-48524)"
}
GHSA-2H35-XMC4-Q3JW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-29 15:31 – Updated: 2026-09-30 18:33Denial-of-service in the Storage: StorageManager component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox ESR 153.4 and Firefox 157.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-100826"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-29T13:17:47Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Denial-of-service in the Storage: StorageManager component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox ESR 153.4 and Firefox 157.",
"id": "GHSA-2h35-xmc4-q3jw",
"modified": "2026-09-30T18:33:13Z",
"published": "2026-09-29T15:31:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-100826"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2059222"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2026-100"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2026-101"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2026-103"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2026-97"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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:
- 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
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.