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.
3119 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-FP2P-FX97-WR62
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:24 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:24CODESYS Control runtime system before 3.5.16.10 allows Uncontrolled Memory Allocation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-15806"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-07-22T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "CODESYS Control runtime system before 3.5.16.10 allows Uncontrolled Memory Allocation.",
"id": "GHSA-fp2p-fx97-wr62",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:24:02Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:24:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-15806"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://customers.codesys.com/index.php?eID=dumpFile\u0026t=f\u0026f=13199\u0026token=3e283c3e73fed61f7c181a7fa1169477efaf0c58\u0026download="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.codesys.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tenable.com/security/research/tra-2020-46"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-FP43-VJ7G-PG92
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-24 22:35 – Updated: 2026-07-24 22:351. Forged combined-resource IDs
CombinedResourceInfo accepts a path-derived ID without an authenticity check,
inflates it without an output limit, converts it to attacker-selected resource
identifiers, and retains unique IDs in an unbounded static cache. In bounded
tests, 20,754 encoded bytes inflated to 16,000,000 characters (about 770:1;
about 49 MB observed heap delta), and 200 unique IDs added 200 permanent cache
entries. A legitimately shaped short ID remained about 1:1, while malformed
input was rejected; the missing distinction is between a server-issued ID and
an attacker-minted but structurally valid ID.
The minimal application also confirmed three sink tails from the same forged-ID root:
- A wildcard CDN mapping performed a server-side fetch and relayed the exact loopback-canary body. This requires the documented combined-resource and wildcard-CDN configuration.
- A forged inner
.xhtmlresource bypassed the excluded-resource boundary and returned its raw content. - A forged
omnifaces.graphicinner resource plus a canaryHostheader caused an outbound GET to that host. This result is blind and deployment-dependent; I am not claiming arbitrary-scheme or arbitrary-destination SSRF.
These behaviors reproduce after the fix for CVE-2026-41883 / GHSA-vp6r-9m58-5xv8. That advisory concerned EL evaluation order in the wildcard CDN path. This report has a different root: unsigned combined IDs and missing decode/cache bounds, with separately demonstrated residual sink behavior.
2. Source-map cache
With the documented optional source-map handler above a synthetic resource handler, 40 unique missing combined-resource requests grew the process-wide source-map cache from 13 to 92 entries. It has no size or eviction bound. This has a separate cache, configuration prerequisite, and fix from family 1.
3. HashParam callback output
A URL-fragment value containing a single-quote JavaScript payload was stored by
o:hashParam and later written unescaped into the Ajax callback script. On the
follow-up Ajax render, real Chrome executed the canary
window.__omniXss=1337. This requires a page using o:hashParam and the
follow-up Ajax render.
4. Session/view push-channel replay
A fresh WebSocket client with no HTTP cookie connected using a victim's session-scoped channel ID and received the victim's subsequent push. The code checks application-wide ID existence but does not bind the handshake to the current HTTP session, despite the documented current-session guarantee. The UUID remains an unguessable bearer-token prerequisite; this is replay after token exposure, not brute force.
5. Push idle-connection and fanout behavior
Twelve independent clients joined one application-scoped channel and all 12 received the same push. Current code sets every accepted session's maximum idle timeout to zero, retains sessions in an unbounded per-channel queue, and walks the full queue on each push. I am reporting the demonstrated mechanism as a bounded design weakness: container connection limits remain an outer bound, and I am not claiming unbounded heap growth from the 12-client test.
Intentionally excluded leads
- A duplicate-Range response-amplification lead was disproved. Twenty-four ranges produced only one response body because the stream wrapper closes after the first range. I am not reporting it as a security issue.
- The older
Servlets.facesRedirectXML issue is fixed on the current branch. I am not reporting it as a new current-upstream issue.
Expected invariants
- Only server-issued combined IDs should be accepted; decoding and caches should be bounded; excluded resources and dynamic handlers should not become attacker-selected inner resources.
- Dynamic URLs should not derive an outbound destination from an untrusted
Hostheader. - Source-map lookups should not create unbounded process-lifetime state.
HashParamvalues must be escaped for a JavaScript string inside an XML CDATA callback.- Session/view push subscriptions should be bound to the owning HTTP session or authenticated principal; idle limits and per-channel caps should remain operator-controllable.
Suggested fixes and available evidence
- Authenticate generated combined IDs with a per-deployment secret, cap inflated output, bound the combined cache, and avoid caching failed loads.
- Require an existing/registered inner resource before wildcard remapping and reject excluded resource types at serve time.
- Derive dynamic-resource origins from trusted configuration rather than the
request
Hostvalue. - Bound or evict the source-map cache.
- Apply JavaScript-string plus CDATA-safe encoding to
HashParamcallback values. - Capture and verify HTTP-session or principal ownership during the WebSocket handshake; retain a finite idle timeout and configurable per-channel limits.
Daniel Birtwhistle
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.omnifaces:omnifaces"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.14.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.omnifaces:omnifaces"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.7.33"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.omnifaces:omnifaces"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.14.23"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.omnifaces:omnifaces"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.7.12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.omnifaces:omnifaces"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "5.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.4.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-770",
"CWE-79",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-24T22:35:27Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## 1. Forged combined-resource IDs\n`CombinedResourceInfo` accepts a path-derived ID without an authenticity check,\ninflates it without an output limit, converts it to attacker-selected resource\nidentifiers, and retains unique IDs in an unbounded static cache. In bounded\ntests, 20,754 encoded bytes inflated to 16,000,000 characters (about 770:1;\nabout 49 MB observed heap delta), and 200 unique IDs added 200 permanent cache\nentries. A legitimately shaped short ID remained about 1:1, while malformed\ninput was rejected; the missing distinction is between a server-issued ID and\nan attacker-minted but structurally valid ID.\n\nThe minimal application also confirmed three sink tails from the same forged-ID\nroot:\n\n- A wildcard CDN mapping performed a server-side fetch and relayed the exact\n loopback-canary body. This requires the documented combined-resource and\n wildcard-CDN configuration.\n- A forged inner `.xhtml` resource bypassed the excluded-resource boundary and\n returned its raw content.\n- A forged `omnifaces.graphic` inner resource plus a canary `Host` header caused\n an outbound GET to that host. This result is blind and deployment-dependent;\n I am not claiming arbitrary-scheme or arbitrary-destination SSRF.\n\nThese behaviors reproduce after the fix for CVE-2026-41883 /\nGHSA-vp6r-9m58-5xv8. That advisory concerned EL evaluation order in the wildcard\nCDN path. This report has a different root: unsigned combined IDs and missing\ndecode/cache bounds, with separately demonstrated residual sink behavior.\n\n## 2. Source-map cache \n\nWith the documented optional source-map handler above a synthetic resource\nhandler, 40 unique missing combined-resource requests grew the process-wide\nsource-map cache from 13 to 92 entries. It has no size or eviction bound. This\nhas a separate cache, configuration prerequisite, and fix from family 1.\n\n## 3. HashParam callback output\n\nA URL-fragment value containing a single-quote JavaScript payload was stored by\n`o:hashParam` and later written unescaped into the Ajax callback script. On the\nfollow-up Ajax render, real Chrome executed the canary\n`window.__omniXss=1337`. This requires a page using `o:hashParam` and the\nfollow-up Ajax render.\n\n## 4. Session/view push-channel replay \n\nA fresh WebSocket client with no HTTP cookie connected using a victim\u0027s\nsession-scoped channel ID and received the victim\u0027s subsequent push. The code\nchecks application-wide ID existence but does not bind the handshake to the\ncurrent HTTP session, despite the documented current-session guarantee. The\nUUID remains an unguessable bearer-token prerequisite; this is replay after\ntoken exposure, not brute force.\n\n## 5. Push idle-connection and fanout behavior \n\nTwelve independent clients joined one application-scoped channel and all 12\nreceived the same push. Current code sets every accepted session\u0027s maximum idle\ntimeout to zero, retains sessions in an unbounded per-channel queue, and walks\nthe full queue on each push. I am reporting the demonstrated mechanism as a\nbounded design weakness: container connection limits remain an outer bound,\nand I am not claiming unbounded heap growth from the 12-client test.\n\n## Intentionally excluded leads\n\n- A duplicate-Range response-amplification lead was disproved. Twenty-four\n ranges produced only one response body because the stream wrapper closes\n after the first range. I am not reporting it as a security issue.\n- The older `Servlets.facesRedirect` XML issue is fixed on the current branch.\n I am not reporting it as a new current-upstream issue.\n\n## Expected invariants\n\n- Only server-issued combined IDs should be accepted; decoding and caches\n should be bounded; excluded resources and dynamic handlers should not become\n attacker-selected inner resources.\n- Dynamic URLs should not derive an outbound destination from an untrusted\n `Host` header.\n- Source-map lookups should not create unbounded process-lifetime state.\n- `HashParam` values must be escaped for a JavaScript string inside an XML\n CDATA callback.\n- Session/view push subscriptions should be bound to the owning HTTP session or\n authenticated principal; idle limits and per-channel caps should remain\n operator-controllable.\n\n## Suggested fixes and available evidence\n\n- Authenticate generated combined IDs with a per-deployment secret, cap\n inflated output, bound the combined cache, and avoid caching failed loads.\n- Require an existing/registered inner resource before wildcard remapping and\n reject excluded resource types at serve time.\n- Derive dynamic-resource origins from trusted configuration rather than the\n request `Host` value.\n- Bound or evict the source-map cache.\n- Apply JavaScript-string plus CDATA-safe encoding to `HashParam` callback\n values.\n- Capture and verify HTTP-session or principal ownership during the WebSocket\n handshake; retain a finite idle timeout and configurable per-channel limits.\n\nDaniel Birtwhistle",
"id": "GHSA-fp43-vj7g-pg92",
"modified": "2026-07-24T22:35:27Z",
"published": "2026-07-24T22:35:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/omnifaces/omnifaces/security/advisories/GHSA-fp43-vj7g-pg92"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/omnifaces/omnifaces/commit/59d6c5188c39418546fe500d05036645987a77d1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/omnifaces/omnifaces/commit/a52b92461cf39d983f51ce8724fe7e6b944073e4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/omnifaces/omnifaces/commit/aa42da361821ddfbb85b126564e71587347d2786"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/omnifaces/omnifaces/commit/c43eef01174a4dc09cec44eff553ff6284150af7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/omnifaces/omnifaces/commit/d5cae243c4692555efaa4ba774e0f8f60e3f4db5"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/omnifaces/omnifaces"
}
],
"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": "OmniFaces: Forged combined-resource IDs and related output/push boundaries"
}
GHSA-FP4M-62FH-77JR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:51 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:51An issue was discovered in Bento4 1.5.1-627. The AP4_StcoAtom class in Core/Ap4StcoAtom.cpp has an attempted excessive memory allocation when called from AP4_AtomFactory::CreateAtomFromStream in Core/Ap4AtomFactory.cpp, as demonstrated by mp42hls.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-20659"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-01-02T17:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Bento4 1.5.1-627. The AP4_StcoAtom class in Core/Ap4StcoAtom.cpp has an attempted excessive memory allocation when called from AP4_AtomFactory::CreateAtomFromStream in Core/Ap4AtomFactory.cpp, as demonstrated by mp42hls.",
"id": "GHSA-fp4m-62fh-77jr",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:51:06Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:51:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-20659"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/axiomatic-systems/Bento4/issues/350"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FP6W-96C2-M2MG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-07 21:31 – Updated: 2025-11-07 21:31IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.3 for Linux, UNIX and Windows (includes Db2 Connect Server) could allow an authenticated user to cause a denial of service due to improper allocation of resources.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-36008"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-07T19:16:23Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.3 for Linux, UNIX and Windows (includes Db2 Connect Server) could allow an authenticated user to cause a denial of service due to improper allocation of resources.",
"id": "GHSA-fp6w-96c2-m2mg",
"modified": "2025-11-07T21:31:20Z",
"published": "2025-11-07T21:31:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-36008"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7250482"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FPC3-3FX6-HVPH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-26 21:30 – Updated: 2023-02-01 18:30In many functions of AutomaticZenRule.java, there is a possible failure to persist permissions settings due to resource exhaustion. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.Product: AndroidVersions: Android-10 Android-11 Android-12 Android-12L Android-13Android ID: A-242704043
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-20492"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-26T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In many functions of AutomaticZenRule.java, there is a possible failure to persist permissions settings due to resource exhaustion. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.Product: AndroidVersions: Android-10 Android-11 Android-12 Android-12L Android-13Android ID: A-242704043",
"id": "GHSA-fpc3-3fx6-hvph",
"modified": "2023-02-01T18:30:31Z",
"published": "2023-01-26T21:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-20492"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2023-01-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FPF6-89PC-P29R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-09 21:30 – Updated: 2024-11-06 00:31In multiple functions of ShortcutService.java, there is a possible persistent DOS due to resource exhaustion. This could lead to local denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-31314"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-07-09T21:15:13Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In multiple functions of ShortcutService.java, there is a possible persistent DOS due to resource exhaustion. This could lead to local denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.",
"id": "GHSA-fpf6-89pc-p29r",
"modified": "2024-11-06T00:31:54Z",
"published": "2024-07-09T21:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-31314"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/c0d5f75e01308fb7d6d86639a0a6e2ff81b30be6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2024-06-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FPFJ-WP86-QMRQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-28 00:00 – Updated: 2022-05-07 00:01A vulnerability in SonicOS CFS (Content filtering service) returns a large 403 forbidden HTTP response message to the source address when users try to access prohibited resource this allows an attacker to cause HTTP Denial of Service (DoS) attack
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-22278"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-04-27T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in SonicOS CFS (Content filtering service) returns a large 403 forbidden HTTP response message to the source address when users try to access prohibited resource this allows an attacker to cause HTTP Denial of Service (DoS) attack",
"id": "GHSA-fpfj-wp86-qmrq",
"modified": "2022-05-07T00:01:00Z",
"published": "2022-04-28T00:00:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-22278"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://psirt.global.sonicwall.com/vuln-detail/SNWLID-2022-0004"
}
],
"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-FPG4-JHQR-589C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-28 02:04 – Updated: 2026-02-28 02:04Some relatively small inputs can cause very large files arrays in form handlers. If the SvelteKit application code doesn't check files.length or individual files' sizes and performs expensive processing with them, it can result in Denial of Service.
Only users with experimental.remoteFunctions: true who are using the form function and are processing the files array without validation are vulnerable.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.53.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@sveltejs/kit"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.49.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.53.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-28T02:04:39Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Some relatively small inputs can cause very large files arrays in `form` handlers. If the SvelteKit application code doesn\u0027t check `files.length` or individual files\u0027 sizes and performs expensive processing with them, it can result in Denial of Service.\n\nOnly users with `experimental.remoteFunctions: true` who are using the `form` function and are processing the `files` array without validation are vulnerable.",
"id": "GHSA-fpg4-jhqr-589c",
"modified": "2026-02-28T02:04:39Z",
"published": "2026-02-28T02:04:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/kit/security/advisories/GHSA-fpg4-jhqr-589c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/kit/commit/faba869db3644077169bf5d7c6e41fd5f3d6c65e"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/kit"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/kit/releases/tag/@sveltejs/kit@2.53.3"
}
],
"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:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "SvelteKit has deserialization expansion in unvalidated `form` remote function leading to Denial of Service (experimental only)"
}
GHSA-FPH9-F5R6-VHQF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-15 03:35 – Updated: 2022-09-15 03:35Impact
Denial of Service
Details
OPC UA specification describes a concept named Subscriptions. Subscriptions monitor a set of Monitored Items for Notifications and return them to the Client in response to Publish requests. The server notifies the client about changes only in case the value is changed. Each monitored item is configured on a subscription, each subscription is linked to a single OPC UA session. Most OPC UA implementations set many controls and limitations for excessive memory consumption. For example:
- What is the maximum allowed number of concurrent sessions
- For each active sessions - what is the maximum allowed number of concurrent subscription per a single session
- For each active subscription - what is the maximum allowed number of concurrent monitored items per a single subscription
Clarity Research discovered a unique way to bypass those restrictions and fill up the OPC UA server process memory.
The close session request closes a connected session. A deleteSubscription flag is also sent in that message and determines whether the server should save the subscriptions for a future session reconnection or discard them upon session termination. If the deleteSubscription flag is False the server will store the subscriptions thus filling up the memory in an unlimited manner.
Sending multiple subscribe requests with multiple monitored items from multiple sessions will quickly fill up the process memory until the server crashes.
To trigger this bug all is needed is to create many sessions with subscriptions and monitored items without ever deleting the monitored items. Eventually these allocations will consume all the available process memory which will lead to a crash and denial of service condition.
Clarity PoC does: ``` while True: Open a valid OPC UA session Create multiple subscriptions Add monitored items to each subscription Close the session with the DeleteSubscriptions flag = False ````
Acknowledgement
We would like to thanks Vera Mens, Uri Katz, @sharonbrizinov of Team82 (Claroty Research) for this report.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in Eclipse Milo repository * Email us at milo-dev
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.eclipse.milo:sdk-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.6.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-25897"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-09-15T03:35:46Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-08T05:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nDenial of Service\n\n### Details\n\nOPC UA specification describes a concept named _Subscriptions_. _Subscriptions_ monitor a set of _Monitored Items_ for _Notifications_ and return them to the _Client_ in response to _Publish_ requests. The server notifies the client about changes only in case the value is changed. Each monitored item is configured on a subscription, each subscription is linked to a single OPC UA session. Most OPC UA implementations set many controls and limitations for excessive memory consumption. For example:\n\n* What is the maximum allowed number of concurrent sessions\n* For each active sessions - what is the maximum allowed number of concurrent subscription per a single session\n* For each active subscription - what is the maximum allowed number of concurrent monitored items per a single subscription\n\nClarity Research discovered a unique way to bypass those restrictions and fill up the OPC UA server process memory.\n\nThe close session request closes a connected session. A `deleteSubscription` flag is also sent in that message and determines whether the server should save the subscriptions for a future session reconnection or discard them upon session termination. If the `deleteSubscription` flag is `False` the server will store the subscriptions thus filling up the memory in an unlimited manner.\n\nSending multiple subscribe requests with multiple monitored items from multiple sessions will quickly fill up the process memory until the server crashes.\n\nTo trigger this bug all is needed is to create many sessions with subscriptions and monitored items without ever deleting the monitored items. Eventually these allocations will consume all the available process memory which will lead to a crash and denial of service condition.\n\nClarity PoC does:\n```\nwhile True:\n Open a valid OPC UA session\n Create multiple subscriptions\n Add monitored items to each subscription\n Close the session with the DeleteSubscriptions flag = False\n````\n\n### Acknowledgement\n\nWe would like to thanks Vera Mens, Uri Katz, @sharonbrizinov of Team82 ([Claroty Research](https://claroty.com/)) for this report.\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [Eclipse Milo repository](https://github.com/eclipse/milo/issues)\n* Email us at [milo-dev](https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/milo-dev)\n",
"id": "GHSA-fph9-f5r6-vhqf",
"modified": "2022-09-15T03:35:46Z",
"published": "2022-09-15T03:35:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/milo/security/advisories/GHSA-fph9-f5r6-vhqf"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-25897"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/milo/issues/1030"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/milo/pull/1031"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/milo/commit/4534381760d7d9f0bf00cbf6a8449bb0d13c6ce5"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/eclipse/milo"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGECLIPSEMILO-2990191"
}
],
"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": "Eclipse Milo vulnerable to Resource Exhaustion (Denial of Service)"
}
GHSA-FPWF-JJ2Q-FXXH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-18 18:30 – Updated: 2025-01-18 18:30IBM Safer Payments 6.4.0.00 through 6.4.2.07, 6.5.0.00 through 6.5.0.05, and 6.6.0.00 through 6.6.0.03 could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service due to improper allocation of resources.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-45662"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-18T17:15:07Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "IBM Safer Payments\u00a06.4.0.00 through 6.4.2.07, 6.5.0.00 through 6.5.0.05, and 6.6.0.00 through 6.6.0.03 could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service due to improper allocation of resources.",
"id": "GHSA-fpwf-jj2q-fxxh",
"modified": "2025-01-18T18:30:47Z",
"published": "2025-01-18T18:30:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-45662"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7173765"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.