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.
3025 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-V9X3-F4G7-PGM4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-11 18:35 – Updated: 2025-06-11 18:35IBM Cognos Analytics 11.2.0, 11.2.1, 11.2.2, 11.2.3, 11.2.4, 12.0.0, 12.0.1, 12.0.2, 12.0.3, and 12.0.4 could allow an authenticated user to cause a denial of service by sending a specially crafted request that would exhaust memory resources.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-25032"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-11T18:15:25Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "IBM Cognos Analytics 11.2.0, 11.2.1, 11.2.2, 11.2.3, 11.2.4, 12.0.0, 12.0.1, 12.0.2, 12.0.3, and 12.0.4 could allow an authenticated user to cause a denial of service by sending a specially crafted request that would exhaust memory resources.",
"id": "GHSA-v9x3-f4g7-pgm4",
"modified": "2025-06-11T18:35:43Z",
"published": "2025-06-11T18:35:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-25032"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7234674"
}
],
"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-V9XR-R3XX-X9GC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-02 21:30 – Updated: 2024-01-07 12:30In Mosquitto before 2.0.16, excessive memory is allocated based on malicious initial packets that are not CONNECT packets.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-0809"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770",
"CWE-789"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-10-02T19:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In Mosquitto before 2.0.16, excessive memory is allocated based on malicious initial packets that are not CONNECT packets.",
"id": "GHSA-v9xr-r3xx-x9gc",
"modified": "2024-01-07T12:30:30Z",
"published": "2023-10-02T21:30:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-0809"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://mosquitto.org/blog/2023/08/version-2-0-16-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202401-09"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-VC24-J8C5-2VW4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-29 18:30 – Updated: 2026-05-08 19:32Summary
OpenTelemetry.Resources.Azure reads unbounded HTTP response bodies from the Azure VM remote instance metadata service endpoint into memory.
This would allow an attacker-controlled endpoint or one acting as a Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) to cause excessive memory allocation and possible process termination (via Out of Memory (OOM)).
Details
The AzureVmMetaDataRequestor class makes HTTP requests to the relevant Azure VM instance metadata service (http://169.254.169.254) to obtain metadata about the running process and its infrastructure.
An attacker who controls the configured endpoint, or who can intercept traffic to them (MiTM), can return an arbitrarily large response body. This causes unbounded heap allocation in the consuming process, leading to high transient memory pressure, garbage-collection stalls, or an OutOfMemoryException that terminates the process.
Impact
Denial of Service (DoS). An attacker can destabilize or crash the application by forcing unbounded memory allocation through the Azure VM instance metadata HTTP response paths.
Mitigating Factors
The application's reachable Azure VM metadata endpoint needs to behave maliciously or be subject to MitM. In normal usage response bodies should not be excessively large.
Patches
Fixed in OpenTelemetry.Resources.Azure version 1.15.0-beta.2.
The fix (#4121) introduce changes that introduce limits to HttpClient requests so that the response body is streamed rather than buffered entirely in memory. Responses greater than 4 MiB are ignored.
Workarounds
- Disable the Azure VM resource detector.
- Use network-level controls (firewall rules, mTLS, service mesh) to prevent Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attacks on the Azure VM instance metadata endpoint.
References
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.15.0-beta.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "OpenTelemetry.Resources.Azure"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.15.1-beta.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-41483"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-29T18:30:51Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-06T22:16:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\n`OpenTelemetry.Resources.Azure` reads unbounded HTTP response bodies from the Azure VM remote instance metadata service endpoint into memory.\n\nThis would allow an attacker-controlled endpoint or one acting as a Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) to cause excessive memory allocation and possible process termination (via Out of Memory (OOM)).\n\n### Details\n\nThe [`AzureVmMetaDataRequestor`](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet-contrib/blob/171c6b81f88831641b56b470e6f92862e605013d/src/OpenTelemetry.Resources.Azure/AzureVmMetaDataRequestor.cs) class makes HTTP requests to the relevant Azure VM instance metadata service (`http://169.254.169.254`) to obtain metadata about the running process and its infrastructure.\n\nAn attacker who controls the configured endpoint, or who can intercept traffic to them (MiTM), can return an arbitrarily large response body. This causes unbounded heap allocation in the consuming process, leading to high transient memory pressure, garbage-collection stalls, or an `OutOfMemoryException` that terminates the process.\n\n### Impact\n\nDenial of Service (DoS). An attacker can destabilize or crash the application by forcing unbounded memory allocation through the Azure VM instance metadata HTTP response paths.\n\n### Mitigating Factors\n\nThe application\u0027s reachable Azure VM metadata endpoint needs to behave maliciously or be subject to MitM. In normal usage response bodies should not be excessively large.\n\n### Patches\n\nFixed in `OpenTelemetry.Resources.Azure` version `1.15.0-beta.2`.\n\nThe fix (#4121) introduce changes that introduce limits to `HttpClient` requests so that the response body is streamed rather than buffered entirely in memory. Responses greater than 4 MiB are ignored.\n\n### Workarounds\n\n- Disable the Azure VM resource detector.\n- Use network-level controls (firewall rules, mTLS, service mesh) to prevent Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attacks on the Azure VM instance metadata endpoint.\n\n### References\n\n- [#4121](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet-contrib/pull/4121)",
"id": "GHSA-vc24-j8c5-2vw4",
"modified": "2026-05-08T19:32:45Z",
"published": "2026-04-29T18:30:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet-contrib/security/advisories/GHSA-vc24-j8c5-2vw4"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41483"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet-contrib/pull/4121"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet-contrib/commit/9d8a364af919f62c088edd641c554cb720198964"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet-contrib"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "OpenTelemetry.Resources.Azure has an unbounded HTTP response body read"
}
GHSA-VC29-VG52-6643
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-06 22:33 – Updated: 2025-03-06 22:33Impact
What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?
A vulnerability in OpenTelemetry.Api package 1.10.0 to 1.11.1 could cause a Denial of Service (DoS) when a tracestate and traceparent header is received. These versions are used in OpenTelemetry .NET Automatic Instrumentation 1.10.0-beta.1 and 1.10.0.
Even if an application does not explicitly use trace context propagation, receiving these headers can still trigger high CPU usage. This issue impacts any application accessible over the web or backend services that process HTTP requests containing a tracestate header. Application may experience excessive resource consumption, leading to increased latency, degraded performance, or downtime.
Patches
Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?
This issue has been resolved in OpenTelemetry.Api 1.11.2 by reverting the change that introduced the problematic behavior in versions 1.10.0 to 1.11.1. OpenTelemetry .NET Automatic Instrumentation fixes it in 1.11.0 release.
Fixed version
| OpenTelemetry .NET Automatic Instrumentation | Status |
|---|---|
| <= 1.9.0 | ✅ Not affected |
| 1.10.0-beta.1, 1.10.0 | ❌ Vulnerable |
| 1.11.0 (Fixed) | ✅ Safe to use |
Workarounds
Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?
References
Are there any links users can visit to find out more?
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "OpenTelemetry.AutoInstrumentation"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.10.0-beta.1"
},
{
"fixed": "1.11.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-03-06T22:33:43Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n_What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_\n\nA vulnerability in `OpenTelemetry.Api` package `1.10.0` to `1.11.1` could cause a [Denial of Service (DoS) when a tracestate and traceparent header is received](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet/security/advisories/GHSA-8785-wc3w-h8q6). These versions are used in OpenTelemetry .NET Automatic Instrumentation `1.10.0-beta.1` and `1.10.0`.\n\nEven if an application does not explicitly use trace context propagation, receiving these headers can still trigger high CPU usage.\nThis issue impacts any application accessible over the web or backend services that process HTTP requests containing a tracestate header.\nApplication may experience excessive resource consumption, leading to increased latency, degraded performance, or downtime.\n\n### Patches\n_Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?_\n\nThis issue has been resolved in `OpenTelemetry.Api` `1.11.2` by reverting the change that introduced the problematic behavior in versions `1.10.0` to `1.11.1`. OpenTelemetry .NET Automatic Instrumentation fixes it in `1.11.0` release.\n\n## Fixed version\n\n| OpenTelemetry .NET Automatic Instrumentation | Status |\n|----|----|\n| \u003c= 1.9.0 | \u2705 Not affected |\n| 1.10.0-beta.1, 1.10.0 | \u274c Vulnerable |\n| 1.11.0 (Fixed)| \u2705 Safe to use|\n\n### Workarounds\n_Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?_\n\n### References\n_Are there any links users can visit to find out more?_",
"id": "GHSA-vc29-vg52-6643",
"modified": "2025-03-06T22:33:43Z",
"published": "2025-03-06T22:33:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet-instrumentation/security/advisories/GHSA-vc29-vg52-6643"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet/security/advisories/GHSA-8785-wc3w-h8q6"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-27513"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet-instrumentation"
}
],
"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": "DoS Vulnerability in TraceContextPropagator.Extract - OpenTelemetry.Api"
}
GHSA-VC2M-HW89-QJXF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-16 19:05 – Updated: 2025-01-17 15:39Impact
MMR before version 1.3.5 is vulnerable to unbounded disk consumption, where an unauthenticated adversary can induce it to download and cache large amounts of remote media files.
MMR's typical operating environment uses S3-like storage as a backend, with file-backed store as an alternative option. Instances using a file-backed store or those which self-host an S3 storage system are therefore vulnerable to a disk fill attack. Once the disk is full, authenticated users will be unable to upload new media, resulting in denial of service.
For instances configured to use a cloud-based S3 storage option, this could result in high service fees instead of a denial of service.
Patches
MMR 1.3.5 introduces a new default-on "leaky bucket" rate limit to reduce the amount of data a user can request at a time. This does not fully address the issue, but does limit an unauthenticated user's ability to request large amounts of data.
Operators should note that the leaky bucket implementation introduced in MMR 1.3.5 requires the IP address associated with the request to be forwarded, to avoid mistakenly applying the rate limit to the reverse proxy instead. To avoid this issue, the reverse proxy should populate the X-Forwarded-For header when sending the request to MMR.
Workarounds
Operators may wish to lower the maximum file size they allow and implement harsh rate limits, though this can still lead to a large amount of data to be downloaded.
References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_bucket#As_a_meter
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/t2bot/matrix-media-repo"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.3.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-36403"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-01-16T19:05:12Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-16T20:15:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nMMR before version 1.3.5 is vulnerable to unbounded disk consumption, where an unauthenticated adversary can induce it to download and cache large amounts of remote media files.\n\nMMR\u0027s typical operating environment uses S3-like storage as a backend, with file-backed store as an alternative option. Instances using a file-backed store or those which self-host an S3 storage system are therefore vulnerable to a disk fill attack. Once the disk is full, authenticated users will be unable to upload new media, resulting in denial of service.\n\nFor instances configured to use a cloud-based S3 storage option, this could result in high service fees instead of a denial of service.\n\n### Patches\n\nMMR 1.3.5 introduces a new default-on \"leaky bucket\" rate limit to reduce the amount of data a user can request at a time. This does not fully address the issue, but does limit an unauthenticated user\u0027s ability to request large amounts of data.\n\nOperators should note that the leaky bucket implementation introduced in MMR 1.3.5 requires the IP address associated with the request to be forwarded, to avoid mistakenly applying the rate limit to the reverse proxy instead. To avoid this issue, the reverse proxy should populate the `X-Forwarded-For` header when sending the request to MMR.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nOperators may wish to lower the maximum file size they allow and implement harsh rate limits, though this can still lead to a large amount of data to be downloaded. \n\n### References\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_bucket#As_a_meter",
"id": "GHSA-vc2m-hw89-qjxf",
"modified": "2025-01-17T15:39:25Z",
"published": "2025-01-16T19:05:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/t2bot/matrix-media-repo/security/advisories/GHSA-vc2m-hw89-qjxf"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-36403"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_bucket#As_a_meter"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/t2bot/matrix-media-repo"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2025-3401"
}
],
"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": "matrix-media-repo (MMR) allows denial of service/high operating costs through unauthenticated downloads"
}
GHSA-VCGF-5QVW-2FWC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-17 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-19 00:00SWFTools commit 772e55a2 was discovered to contain a heap-buffer overflow via draw_stroke at /gfxpoly/stroke.c.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-35109"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-16T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "SWFTools commit 772e55a2 was discovered to contain a heap-buffer overflow via draw_stroke at /gfxpoly/stroke.c.",
"id": "GHSA-vcgf-5qvw-2fwc",
"modified": "2022-08-19T00:00:22Z",
"published": "2022-08-17T00:00:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-35109"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/matthiaskramm/swftools/issues/184"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-VCWQ-9QRW-7MH3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:07 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:07The xhci_ring_fetch function in hw/usb/hcd-xhci.c in QEMU (aka Quick Emulator) allows local guest OS administrators to cause a denial of service (infinite loop and QEMU process crash) by leveraging failure to limit the number of link Transfer Request Blocks (TRB) to process.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-8576"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2016-11-04T21:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The xhci_ring_fetch function in hw/usb/hcd-xhci.c in QEMU (aka Quick Emulator) allows local guest OS administrators to cause a denial of service (infinite loop and QEMU process crash) by leveraging failure to limit the number of link Transfer Request Blocks (TRB) to process.",
"id": "GHSA-vcwq-9qrw-7mh3",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:07:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:07:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-8576"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:2392"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:2408"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2016-8576"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333425"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2018/09/msg00007.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-10/msg01265.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201611-11"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git%3Ba=commit%3Bh=05f43d44e4bc26611ce25fd7d726e483f73363ce"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=05f43d44e4bc26611ce25fd7d726e483f73363ce"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-updates/2016-12/msg00140.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/10/10/12"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/10/10/6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/93469"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-VCWV-JW38-8HQP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-03-06 09:30 – Updated: 2025-02-14 18:30In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
powerpc/lib: Validate size for vector operations
Some of the fp/vmx code in sstep.c assume a certain maximum size for the instructions being emulated. The size of those operations however is determined separately in analyse_instr().
Add a check to validate the assumption on the maximum size of the operations, so as to prevent any unintended kernel stack corruption.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-52606"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-03-06T07:15:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\npowerpc/lib: Validate size for vector operations\n\nSome of the fp/vmx code in sstep.c assume a certain maximum size for the\ninstructions being emulated. The size of those operations however is\ndetermined separately in analyse_instr().\n\nAdd a check to validate the assumption on the maximum size of the\noperations, so as to prevent any unintended kernel stack corruption.",
"id": "GHSA-vcwv-jw38-8hqp",
"modified": "2025-02-14T18:30:45Z",
"published": "2024-03-06T09:30:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-52606"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0580f4403ad33f379eef865c2a6fe94de37febdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/28b8ba8eebf26f66d9f2df4ba550b6b3b136082c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/42084a428a139f1a429f597d44621e3a18f3e414"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/848e1d7fd710900397e1d0e7584680c1c04e3afd"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/8f9abaa6d7de0a70fc68acaedce290c1f96e2e59"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/abd26515d4b767ba48241eea77b28ce0872aef3e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/beee482cc4c9a6b1dcffb2e190b4fd8782258678"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/de4f5ed63b8a199704d8cdcbf810309d7eb4b36b"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2024/06/msg00017.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-VF2M-468P-8V99
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-05 00:26 – Updated: 2026-05-05 00:26Summary
When responseType: 'stream' is used, Axios returns the response stream without enforcing maxContentLength. This bypasses configured response-size limits and allows unbounded downstream consumption.
Details
In lib/adapters/http.js: - 786-789: for responseType === 'stream', Axios immediately settles with the stream. - 797-810: maxContentLength enforcement exists only in the non-stream buffering branch.
So callers may set maxContentLength and still receive/read arbitrarily large streamed responses.
PoC
Environment: - Axios main at commit f7a4ee2 - Node v24.2.0
Steps:
- Start an HTTP server that returns a 2 MiB response body.
- Call Axios with:
- adapter: 'http'
- responseType: 'stream'
- maxContentLength: 1024
- Read the returned stream fully.
Observed: - Success; full 2097152 bytes readable.
Control check: - Same endpoint with responseType: 'text' and same maxContentLength: rejected with maxContentLength size of 1024 exceeded.
Impact
Type: DoS / unbounded response processing. Impacted: Node.js applications relying on maxContentLength as a safety boundary while using streamed Axios responses.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "axios"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.15.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.31.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "axios"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.31.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-42036"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-05T00:26:57Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-24T18:16:30Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nWhen responseType: \u0027stream\u0027 is used, Axios returns the response stream without enforcing maxContentLength. This bypasses configured response-size limits and allows unbounded downstream consumption.\n\n### Details\nIn lib/adapters/http.js:\n - 786-789: for responseType === \u0027stream\u0027, Axios immediately settles with the stream.\n - 797-810: maxContentLength enforcement exists only in the non-stream buffering branch.\n\nSo callers may set maxContentLength and still receive/read arbitrarily large streamed responses.\n\n### PoC\n\nEnvironment:\n- Axios main at commit f7a4ee2\n- Node v24.2.0\n\n Steps:\n\n1. Start an HTTP server that returns a 2 MiB response body.\n2. Call Axios with:\n - adapter: \u0027http\u0027\n - responseType: \u0027stream\u0027\n - maxContentLength: 1024\n3. Read the returned stream fully.\n\nObserved:\n- Success; full 2097152 bytes readable.\n\nControl check:\n- Same endpoint with responseType: \u0027text\u0027 and same maxContentLength: rejected with maxContentLength size of 1024 exceeded.\n\n### Impact\nType: DoS / unbounded response processing.\nImpacted: Node.js applications relying on maxContentLength as a safety boundary while using streamed Axios responses.",
"id": "GHSA-vf2m-468p-8v99",
"modified": "2026-05-05T00:26:58Z",
"published": "2026-05-05T00:26:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/security/advisories/GHSA-vf2m-468p-8v99"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42036"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/axios/axios"
}
],
"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": "Axios: HTTP adapter streamed responses bypass maxContentLength"
}
GHSA-VF2X-WCWG-V9CG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-31 18:30 – Updated: 2024-12-31 18:30Trend Micro ID Security, version 3.0 and below contains a vulnerability that could allow an attacker to send an unlimited number of email verification requests without any restriction, potentially leading to abuse or denial of service.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-53647"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-307",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-31T16:15:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Trend Micro ID Security, version 3.0 and below contains a vulnerability that could allow an attacker to send an unlimited number of email verification requests without any restriction, potentially leading to abuse or denial of service.",
"id": "GHSA-vf2x-wcwg-v9cg",
"modified": "2024-12-31T18:30:51Z",
"published": "2024-12-31T18:30:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-53647"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpcenter.trendmicro.com/en-us/article/tmka-06710"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"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.