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.
3956 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-FC3H-CC99-762G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-06 09:30 – Updated: 2025-06-06 09:30Resource allocation control failure vulnerability in the ArkUI framework Impact: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may affect availability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-58114"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-06T07:15:24Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Resource allocation control failure vulnerability in the ArkUI framework\nImpact: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may affect availability.",
"id": "GHSA-fc3h-cc99-762g",
"modified": "2025-06-06T09:30:23Z",
"published": "2025-06-06T09:30:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-58114"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://consumer.huawei.com/en/support/bulletin/2025/6"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FC4Q-WR43-J7J5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-11 18:32 – Updated: 2024-10-11 18:32An Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in the PFE management daemon (evo-pfemand) of Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved allows an authenticated, network-based attacker to cause an FPC crash leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).When specific SNMP GET operations or specific low-priviledged CLI commands are executed, a GUID resource leak will occur, eventually leading to exhaustion and resulting in FPCs to hang. Affected FPCs need to be manually restarted to recover.
GUID exhaustion will trigger a syslog message like one of the following:
evo-pfemand[]: get_next_guid: Ran out of Guid Space ... evo-aftmand-zx[]: get_next_guid: Ran out of Guid Space ... The leak can be monitored by running the following command and taking note of the values in the rightmost column labeled Guids:
user@host> show platform application-info allocations app evo-pfemand/evo-pfemand
In case one or more of these values are constantly increasing the leak is happening.
This issue affects Junos OS Evolved:
- All versions before 21.2R3-S8-EVO,
- 21.3 versions before 21.3R3-EVO;
-
21.4 versions before 22.1R2-EVO,
-
22.1 versions before 22.1R1-S1-EVO, 22.1R2-EVO.
Please note that this issue is similar to, but different from CVE-2024-47505 and CVE-2024-47509.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-47508"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-11T16:15:12Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling\u00a0vulnerability in the PFE management daemon (evo-pfemand) of Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved allows an authenticated, network-based attacker to cause an FPC crash leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).When specific SNMP GET operations or specific low-priviledged CLI commands are executed, a GUID resource leak will occur, eventually leading to exhaustion and resulting in FPCs to hang. Affected FPCs need to be manually restarted to recover.\n\nGUID exhaustion will trigger a syslog message like one of the following:\n\nevo-pfemand[\u003cpid\u003e]: get_next_guid: Ran out of Guid Space ...\nevo-aftmand-zx[\u003cpid\u003e]: get_next_guid: Ran out of Guid Space ...\nThe leak can be monitored by running the following command and taking note of the values in the rightmost column labeled Guids:\n\n\n\n\n\nuser@host\u003e show platform application-info allocations app evo-pfemand/evo-pfemand\n\n\n\nIn case one or more of these values are constantly increasing the leak is happening.\n\nThis issue affects Junos OS Evolved:\n\n\n\n * All versions before 21.2R3-S8-EVO,\n * 21.3 versions before 21.3R3-EVO;\n * 21.4 versions before 22.1R2-EVO,\n\n * 22.1 versions before\u00a022.1R1-S1-EVO, 22.1R2-EVO.\n\n\n\n\n\nPlease note that this issue is similar to, but different from CVE-2024-47505 and CVE-2024-47509.",
"id": "GHSA-fc4q-wr43-j7j5",
"modified": "2024-10-11T18:32:49Z",
"published": "2024-10-11T18:32:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-47508"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://supportportal.juniper.net"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:Y/R:X/V:X/RE:M/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-FC6J-W9HX-R5XV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-07 09:30 – Updated: 2023-12-09 06:30A lack of rate limiting in pjActionAJaxSend in Availability Booking Calendar 5.0 allows attackers to cause resource exhaustion.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-48831"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-07T07:15:11Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A lack of rate limiting in pjActionAJaxSend in Availability Booking Calendar 5.0 allows attackers to cause resource exhaustion.",
"id": "GHSA-fc6j-w9hx-r5xv",
"modified": "2023-12-09T06:30:20Z",
"published": "2023-12-07T09:30:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-48831"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.phpjabbers.com/availability-booking-calendar/#sectionDemo"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/176039"
}
],
"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-FC83-9JWQ-GC2M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-24 19:39 – Updated: 2025-03-24 19:39Prior to version 0.10.3, the built-in clients of the web-push crate eagerly allocated memory based on the Content-Length header returned by the Web Push endpoint. Malicious Web Push endpoints could return a large Content-Length without ever having to send as much data, leading to denial of service by memory exhaustion.
Services providing Web Push notifications typically allow the user to register an arbitrary endpoint, so the endpoint should not be trusted.
The fixed version 0.10.3 now limits the amount of memory it will allocate for each response, limits the amount of data it will read from the endpoint, and returns an error if the endpoint sends too much data.
As before, it is recommended that services add a timeout for each request to Web Push endpoints.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "web-push"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.10.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-03-24T19:39:27Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Prior to version 0.10.3, the built-in clients of the `web-push` crate eagerly allocated memory based on the `Content-Length` header returned by the Web Push endpoint. Malicious Web Push endpoints could return a large `Content-Length` without ever having to send as much data, leading to denial of service by memory exhaustion.\n\nServices providing Web Push notifications typically allow the user to register an arbitrary endpoint, so the endpoint should not be trusted.\n\nThe fixed version 0.10.3 now limits the amount of memory it will allocate for each response, limits the amount of data it will read from the endpoint, and returns an error if the endpoint sends too much data.\n\nAs before, it is recommended that services add a timeout for each request to Web Push endpoints.",
"id": "GHSA-fc83-9jwq-gc2m",
"modified": "2025-03-24T19:39:27Z",
"published": "2025-03-24T19:39:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pimeys/rust-web-push/pull/68"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/pimeys/rust-web-push"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2025-0015.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Web Push Denial of Service via malicious Web Push endpoint"
}
GHSA-FCCC-8M69-8R78
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-20 12:32 – Updated: 2025-03-21 23:59A vulnerability in ollama/ollama <=0.3.14 allows a malicious user to create a customized GGUF model file, upload it to the Ollama server, and create it. This can cause the server to allocate unlimited memory, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/ollama/ollama"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.3.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-0315"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-03-21T23:59:26Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-20T10:15:52Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in ollama/ollama \u003c=0.3.14 allows a malicious user to create a customized GGUF model file, upload it to the Ollama server, and create it. This can cause the server to allocate unlimited memory, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.",
"id": "GHSA-fccc-8m69-8r78",
"modified": "2025-03-21T23:59:26Z",
"published": "2025-03-20T12:32:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-0315"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ollama/ollama"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.com/bounties/da414d29-b55a-496f-b135-17e0fcec67bc"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Ollama Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability"
}
GHSA-FCM2-6C3H-PG6J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-06 21:50 – Updated: 2023-07-24 19:33Description
An ExecSync request runs a command in a container and returns the output to the Kubelet. It is used for readiness and liveness probes within a pod. The way CRI-O runs ExecSync commands is through conmon. CRI-O asks conmon to start the process, and conmon writes the output to disk. CRI-O then reads the output and returns it to the Kubelet.
If the output of the command is large enough, it is possible to exhaust the memory (or disk usage) of the node. The following deployment is an example yaml file that will output around 8GB of ‘A’ characters, which would be written to disk by conmon and read by CRI-O.
apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
name: nginx-deployment100
spec:
selector:
matchLabels:
app: nginx
replicas: 2
template:
metadata:
labels:
app: nginx
spec:
containers:
- name: nginx
image: nginx:1.14.2
lifecycle:
postStart:
exec:
command: ["/bin/sh", "-c", "seq 1 50000000`; do echo -n 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'; done"]
Impact
It is possible for the node to be exhausted of memory or disk space, depending on the node the command is being run on. What is further problematic is that the memory and disk usage aren't attributed to the container, as this file and its processing are implementation details of CRI-O. The consequence of the exhaustion is that other services on the node, e.g. other containers, will be unable to allocate memory and thus causing a denial of service.
Patches
This vulnerability will be fixed in 1.24.1, 1.23.3, 1.22.5, v1.21.8, v1.20.8, v1.19.7
Workarounds
At the time of writing, no workaround exists other than ensuring only trusted images are used.
References
https://github.com/containerd/containerd/security/advisories/GHSA-5ffw-gxpp-mxpf
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in the CRI-O repo * To make a report, email your vulnerability to the private cncf-crio-security@lists.cncf.io list with the security details and the details expected for all CRI-O bug reports.
Credits
Disclosed by Ada Logics in a security audit sponsored by CNCF and facilitated by OSTIF.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/cri-o/cri-o"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.24.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.24.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"1.24.0"
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/cri-o/cri-o"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.23.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.23.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/cri-o/cri-o"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.22.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-1708"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-06-06T21:50:21Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-07T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Description\nAn ExecSync request runs a command in a container and returns the output to the Kubelet. It is used for readiness and liveness probes within a pod. The way CRI-O runs ExecSync commands is through conmon. CRI-O asks conmon to start the process, and conmon writes the output to disk. CRI-O then reads the output and returns it to the Kubelet.\n\nIf the output of the command is large enough, it is possible to exhaust the memory (or disk usage) of the node. The following deployment is an example yaml file that will output around 8GB of \u2018A\u2019 characters, which would be written to disk by conmon and read by CRI-O.\n\n```yaml\napiVersion: apps/v1\nkind: Deployment\nmetadata:\n name: nginx-deployment100\nspec:\n selector:\n matchLabels:\n app: nginx\n replicas: 2\n template:\n metadata:\n labels:\n app: nginx\n spec:\n containers:\n - name: nginx\n image: nginx:1.14.2\n lifecycle:\n postStart:\n exec:\n command: [\"/bin/sh\", \"-c\", \"seq 1 50000000`; do echo -n \u0027aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa\u0027; done\"]\n```\n\n### Impact\nIt is possible for the node to be exhausted of memory or disk space, depending on the node the command is being run on. What is further problematic is that the memory and disk usage aren\u0027t attributed to the container, as this file and its processing are implementation details of CRI-O. The consequence of the exhaustion is that other services on the node, e.g. other containers, will be unable to allocate memory and thus causing a denial of service.\n\n### Patches\nThis vulnerability will be fixed in 1.24.1, 1.23.3, 1.22.5, v1.21.8, v1.20.8, v1.19.7\n\n### Workarounds\nAt the time of writing, no workaround exists other than ensuring only trusted images are used.\n\n### References\nhttps://github.com/containerd/containerd/security/advisories/GHSA-5ffw-gxpp-mxpf\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [the CRI-O repo](http://github.com/cri-o/cri-o/issues)\n* To make a report, email your vulnerability to the private\n[cncf-crio-security@lists.cncf.io](mailto:cncf-crio-security@lists.cncf.io) list\nwith the security details and the details expected for [all CRI-O bug\nreports](https://github.com/cri-o/cri-o/blob/main/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.yml).\n\n### Credits\nDisclosed by Ada Logics in a security audit sponsored by CNCF and facilitated by OSTIF.\n",
"id": "GHSA-fcm2-6c3h-pg6j",
"modified": "2023-07-24T19:33:40Z",
"published": "2022-06-06T21:50:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cri-o/cri-o/security/advisories/GHSA-fcm2-6c3h-pg6j"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-1708"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cri-o/cri-o/commit/f032cf649ecc7e0c46718bd9e7814bfb317cb544"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2085361"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/cri-o/cri-o"
}
],
"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": "Node DOS by way of memory exhaustion through ExecSync request in CRI-O"
}
GHSA-FF3F-86QR-9CV3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-30 15:40 – Updated: 2026-09-30 15:40A denial of service (DoS) vulnerability was identified in @angular/router when Server-Side Rendering (SSR) is enabled on Node.js (V8).
When @angular/router parses incoming request URLs, it extracts path segments, matrix parameters, and child outlets into plain JavaScript objects (Record<string, string>). When matrix parameter names or outlet names are numeric strings (such as /a;990;2522), the V8 JavaScript engine interprets them as array-indexed properties rather than named properties.
Under V8's internal property-storage heuristics, setting numeric keys on an initially empty object causes V8 to allocate a dense array backing store (HOLEY_ELEMENTS) sized to the maximum index rather than falling back to sparse dictionary storage. Specifically, assigning sequential or moderately large numeric keys (like 990 followed by 2522) causes V8 to allocate a contiguous backing store of ~2,522 pointers (~20 KB to 25 KB of heap) for a single 11-byte segment.
Because each segment in a URL path allocates its own independent parameters object, an attacker can craft URLs with repeated numeric matrix parameters to achieve an asymmetric memory amplification factor of approximately ~350x.
Impact
Successful exploitation allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to exhaust the Node.js old-space heap with modest request volume, terminating the SSR worker with an unrecoverable JavaScript heap out of memory fatal error and causing a Denial of Service.
- High Amplification: A single 11-byte segment (
/a;990;2522) consumes ~20 KB–25 KB of V8 heap. - Low Concurrency Required:
- With 8 KB request paths (~740 segments, within default Nginx 8 KB buffer limits), as few as 12–22 concurrent requests crash a 256 MiB–512 MiB Node.js SSR worker.
- With smaller 1 KB–2 KB request paths (~90–180 segments), a burst of ~50–100 concurrent requests achieves the same heap exhaustion.
- Client-side SPAs Unaffected: Pure client-side Angular applications (Single Page Applications without SSR) are not vulnerable, as local browser memory consumption does not cross a security boundary.
Attack Preconditions & Vulnerable Configurations
An application is affected only if all of the following conditions are met:
- SSR Enabled: The application runs in a Server-Side Rendering environment powered by Node.js / V8.
- Direct Router Parsing: User-controlled request URLs are parsed by
@angular/routerduring SSR. - No Reverse-Proxy Semicolon/Segment Filtering: Upstream reverse proxies (Nginx, Cloudflare, ALB) forward URLs containing semicolons (
;) and multiple path segments without stripping or rejecting them.
Exploit Payload Example
An attacker sends concurrent HTTP requests with repeated numeric matrix parameters:
GET /a;990;2522/a;990;2522/a;990;2522/... HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Even with paths under 2 KB, overlapping requests during SSR will rapidly consume the V8 heap until the process crashes.
Patches
The issue is resolved by updating @angular/router to enforce V8 dictionary elements storage (setUrlDerivedKey) for numeric URL-derived keys (index >= 32). This prevents V8 from allocating oversized contiguous array backing stores while preserving route matching, parameter values, and component input bindings.
22.2.021.2.2420.3.32
Workarounds & Mitigations
If you cannot immediately upgrade to a patched version, apply one of the following mitigations at your edge or reverse proxy:
- Block or Sanitize Matrix Parameters at the Reverse Proxy:
Configure your reverse proxy (e.g., Nginx, Cloudflare, or AWS WAF) to reject or strip semicolons (;) in request paths before forwarding requests to the Angular SSR service:nginx # Nginx example: reject requests containing matrix parameters if ($uri ~* ";") { return 400; } - Enforce Strict Path Segment Limits:
Reject requests with excessive path depth (e.g., more than 20–30 segments). - Increase Node.js Old Space:
Increase--max-old-space-size(e.g., to 2048 or 4096 MB) to increase the concurrency threshold required to exhaust memory, though this does not fully eliminate the vulnerability under sustained traffic.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@angular/router"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "22.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "22.2.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@angular/router"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "21.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "21.2.24"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@angular/router"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "20.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "20.3.32"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@angular/router"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "19.2.25"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-101896"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-30T15:40:47Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A denial of service (DoS) vulnerability was identified in `@angular/router` when Server-Side Rendering (SSR) is enabled on Node.js (V8).\n\nWhen `@angular/router` parses incoming request URLs, it extracts path segments, matrix parameters, and child outlets into plain JavaScript objects (`Record\u003cstring, string\u003e`). When matrix parameter names or outlet names are numeric strings (such as `/a;990;2522`), the V8 JavaScript engine interprets them as array-indexed properties rather than named properties.\n\nUnder V8\u0027s internal property-storage heuristics, setting numeric keys on an initially empty object causes V8 to allocate a dense array backing store (`HOLEY_ELEMENTS`) sized to the maximum index rather than falling back to sparse dictionary storage. Specifically, assigning sequential or moderately large numeric keys (like `990` followed by `2522`) causes V8 to allocate a contiguous backing store of ~2,522 pointers (~20 KB to 25 KB of heap) for a single 11-byte segment.\n\nBecause each segment in a URL path allocates its own independent `parameters` object, an attacker can craft URLs with repeated numeric matrix parameters to achieve an asymmetric memory amplification factor of approximately **~350x**.\n\n### Impact\n\nSuccessful exploitation allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to exhaust the Node.js old-space heap with modest request volume, terminating the SSR worker with an unrecoverable `JavaScript heap out of memory` fatal error and causing a Denial of Service.\n\n* **High Amplification:** A single 11-byte segment (`/a;990;2522`) consumes ~20 KB\u201325 KB of V8 heap.\n* **Low Concurrency Required:**\n * With 8 KB request paths (~740 segments, within default Nginx 8 KB buffer limits), as few as **12\u201322 concurrent requests** crash a 256 MiB\u2013512 MiB Node.js SSR worker.\n * With smaller 1 KB\u20132 KB request paths (~90\u2013180 segments), a burst of ~50\u2013100 concurrent requests achieves the same heap exhaustion.\n* **Client-side SPAs Unaffected:** Pure client-side Angular applications (Single Page Applications without SSR) are **not** vulnerable, as local browser memory consumption does not cross a security boundary.\n\n### Attack Preconditions \u0026 Vulnerable Configurations\n\nAn application is affected only if **all** of the following conditions are met:\n\n* **SSR Enabled:** The application runs in a Server-Side Rendering environment powered by Node.js / V8.\n* **Direct Router Parsing:** User-controlled request URLs are parsed by `@angular/router` during SSR.\n* **No Reverse-Proxy Semicolon/Segment Filtering:** Upstream reverse proxies (Nginx, Cloudflare, ALB) forward URLs containing semicolons (`;`) and multiple path segments without stripping or rejecting them.\n\n#### Exploit Payload Example\n\nAn attacker sends concurrent HTTP requests with repeated numeric matrix parameters:\n\n```http\nGET /a;990;2522/a;990;2522/a;990;2522/... HTTP/1.1\nHost: example.com\n```\n\nEven with paths under 2 KB, overlapping requests during SSR will rapidly consume the V8 heap until the process crashes.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe issue is resolved by updating `@angular/router` to enforce V8 dictionary elements storage (`setUrlDerivedKey`) for numeric URL-derived keys (index \u003e= 32). This prevents V8 from allocating oversized contiguous array backing stores while preserving route matching, parameter values, and component input bindings.\n\n* `22.2.0`\n* `21.2.24`\n* `20.3.32`\n\n### Workarounds \u0026 Mitigations\n\nIf you cannot immediately upgrade to a patched version, apply one of the following mitigations at your edge or reverse proxy:\n\n1. **Block or Sanitize Matrix Parameters at the Reverse Proxy:** \n Configure your reverse proxy (e.g., Nginx, Cloudflare, or AWS WAF) to reject or strip semicolons (`;`) in request paths before forwarding requests to the Angular SSR service:\n ```nginx\n # Nginx example: reject requests containing matrix parameters\n if ($uri ~* \";\") {\n return 400;\n }\n ```\n2. **Enforce Strict Path Segment Limits:** \n Reject requests with excessive path depth (e.g., more than 20\u201330 segments).\n3. **Increase Node.js Old Space:** \n Increase `--max-old-space-size` (e.g., to 2048 or 4096 MB) to increase the concurrency threshold required to exhaust memory, though this does not fully eliminate the vulnerability under sustained traffic.",
"id": "GHSA-ff3f-86qr-9cv3",
"modified": "2026-09-30T15:40:47Z",
"published": "2026-09-30T15:40:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/angular/angular/security/advisories/GHSA-ff3f-86qr-9cv3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/angular/angular/issues/70716"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/angular/angular/pull/70717"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/angular/angular/commit/03872a80bcf1c89b2b04cdd3f444b2ee954da583"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/angular/angular/commit/5af61216eab8bf4a6697a1d79bda3d857c06f89d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/angular/angular/commit/ddfe21072ba32ca4cd9d7d3c6b7df66af81d58c4"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/angular/angular"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Angular Server-Side Rendering (SSR): Denial of Service via Numeric URL Matrix Parameters"
}
GHSA-FF4V-MG5Q-R7G9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-08 15:33 – Updated: 2026-10-08 15:33Uncontrolled eviction in the pending sign-in tables of the REST API in Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.3.4 and 6.3.5 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to make other users' OpenID Connect, SAML and passkey sign-ins fail. The routes that start a single sign-on and hand out a passkey sign-in challenge are reached without authentication and stored pending state in bounded tables that dropped their oldest entry when full, whoever had started it. An attacker who starts sign-ins a few times a second (about a hundred a second for passkeys) pushes every other user's pending sign-in out of the table before that user's browser returns, denying single sign-on and passkey sign-in for as long as the requests continue.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-107585"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-08T15:17:44Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Uncontrolled eviction in the pending sign-in tables of the REST API in Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.3.4 and 6.3.5 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to make other users\u0027 OpenID Connect, SAML and passkey sign-ins fail. The routes that start a single sign-on and hand out a passkey sign-in challenge are reached without authentication and stored pending state in bounded tables that dropped their oldest entry when full, whoever had started it. An attacker who starts sign-ins a few times a second (about a hundred a second for passkeys) pushes every other user\u0027s pending sign-in out of the table before that user\u0027s browser returns, denying single sign-on and passkey sign-in for as long as the requests continue.",
"id": "GHSA-ff4v-mg5q-r7g9",
"modified": "2026-10-08T15:33:04Z",
"published": "2026-10-08T15:33:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-107585"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/hmailserver/hmailserver/-/releases/v6.3.6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/hmailserver/hmailserver/-/work_items/63"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-FFFR-7X4X-F98Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-16 17:16 – Updated: 2022-09-16 17:16Meta
- CVSS:
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H/E:F/RL:O/RC:C(5.5)
Problem
Requesting invalid or non-existing resources via HTTP triggers the page error handler which again could retrieve content to be shown as an error message from another page. This leads to a scenario in which the application is calling itself recursively - amplifying the impact of the initial attack until the limits of the web server are exceeded.
This vulnerability is the same as described in TYPO3-CORE-SA-2021-005 (CVE-2021-21359). A regression, introduced during TYPO3 v11 development, led to this situation.
Solution
Update to TYPO3 version 11.5.16 that fixes the problem described above.
Credits
Thanks to Rik Willems who reported this issue and to TYPO3 core & security team member Oliver Hader who fixed the issue.
References
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "typo3/cms-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "11.4.0"
},
{
"fixed": "11.5.16"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "typo3/cms"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "11.4.0"
},
{
"fixed": "11.5.16"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-36104"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-09-16T17:16:46Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-13T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "\u003e ### Meta\n\u003e * CVSS: `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H/E:F/RL:O/RC:C` (5.5)\n\n### Problem\nRequesting invalid or non-existing resources via HTTP triggers the page error handler which again could retrieve content to be shown as an error message from another page. This leads to a scenario in which the application is calling itself recursively - amplifying the impact of the initial attack until the limits of the web server are exceeded.\n\nThis vulnerability is the same as described in [TYPO3-CORE-SA-2021-005](https://typo3.org/security/advisory/typo3-core-sa-2021-005) ([CVE-2021-21359](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-21359)). A regression, introduced during TYPO3 v11 development, led to this situation.\n\n### Solution\nUpdate to TYPO3 version 11.5.16 that fixes the problem described above.\n\n### Credits\nThanks to Rik Willems who reported this issue and to TYPO3 core \u0026 security team member Oliver Hader who fixed the issue.\n\n### References\n* [TYPO3-CORE-SA-2022-006](https://typo3.org/security/advisory/typo3-core-sa-2022-006)",
"id": "GHSA-fffr-7x4x-f98q",
"modified": "2022-09-16T17:16:46Z",
"published": "2022-09-16T17:16:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/TYPO3/typo3/security/advisories/GHSA-fffr-7x4x-f98q"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-36104"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/TYPO3/typo3/commit/179dd7cd78947081d573fee2050e197faa556f13"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/TYPO3/typo3/commit/fc51ccbf2bb8a8c959aa74cbceca124971e6e7fd"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FriendsOfPHP/security-advisories/blob/master/typo3/cms-core/CVE-2022-36104.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FriendsOfPHP/security-advisories/blob/master/typo3/cms/CVE-2022-36104.yaml"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/TYPO3/typo3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://typo3.org/security/advisory/typo3-core-sa-2022-006"
}
],
"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": "TYPO3 CMS vulnerable to Denial of Service in Page Error Handling"
}
GHSA-FFHP-M2C7-JV8H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-27 21:31 – Updated: 2026-08-31 21:31Spring for GraphQL's Spring Data pagination support resolves arguments of a scrollable query and forwards the client-supplied values to the underlying repository. An attacker can forge a malicious query for a Connection field that can exhaust application memory or place significant, prolonged load on the underlying datastore, resulting in a Denial of Service. Spring for GraphQL 2.0.0 - 2.0.4 Spring for GraphQL 1.4.0 - 1.4.6 Spring for GraphQL 1.2.0 - 1.3.9
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-59289"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-27T20:17:55Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Spring for GraphQL\u0027s Spring Data pagination support resolves arguments of a scrollable query and forwards the client-supplied values to the underlying repository. An attacker can forge a malicious query for a Connection field that can exhaust application memory or place significant, prolonged load on the underlying datastore, resulting in a Denial of Service.\nSpring for GraphQL 2.0.0 - 2.0.4\nSpring for GraphQL 1.4.0 - 1.4.6\nSpring for GraphQL 1.2.0 - 1.3.9",
"id": "GHSA-ffhp-m2c7-jv8h",
"modified": "2026-08-31T21:31:54Z",
"published": "2026-08-27T21:31:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-59289"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://spring.io/security/cve-2026-59289"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Mitigation
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
Mitigation
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation
- Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
- The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
- The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
- recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays
- uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
Mitigation
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
Mitigation MIT-38.1
- If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery.
- Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
Mitigation MIT-47
Strategy: Resource Limitation
- Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems.
- When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users.
- Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).
CAPEC-125: Flooding
An adversary consumes the resources of a target by rapidly engaging in a large number of interactions with the target. This type of attack generally exposes a weakness in rate limiting or flow. When successful this attack prevents legitimate users from accessing the service and can cause the target to crash. This attack differs from resource depletion through leaks or allocations in that the latter attacks do not rely on the volume of requests made to the target but instead focus on manipulation of the target's operations. The key factor in a flooding attack is the number of requests the adversary can make in a given period of time. The greater this number, the more likely an attack is to succeed against a given target.
CAPEC-130: Excessive Allocation
An adversary causes the target to allocate excessive resources to servicing the attackers' request, thereby reducing the resources available for legitimate services and degrading or denying services. Usually, this attack focuses on memory allocation, but any finite resource on the target could be the attacked, including bandwidth, processing cycles, or other resources. This attack does not attempt to force this allocation through a large number of requests (that would be Resource Depletion through Flooding) but instead uses one or a small number of requests that are carefully formatted to force the target to allocate excessive resources to service this request(s). Often this attack takes advantage of a bug in the target to cause the target to allocate resources vastly beyond what would be needed for a normal request.
CAPEC-147: XML Ping of the Death
An attacker initiates a resource depletion attack where a large number of small XML messages are delivered at a sufficiently rapid rate to cause a denial of service or crash of the target. Transactions such as repetitive SOAP transactions can deplete resources faster than a simple flooding attack because of the additional resources used by the SOAP protocol and the resources necessary to process SOAP messages. The transactions used are immaterial as long as they cause resource utilization on the target. In other words, this is a normal flooding attack augmented by using messages that will require extra processing on the target.
CAPEC-197: Exponential Data Expansion
An adversary submits data to a target application which contains nested exponential data expansion to produce excessively large output. Many data format languages allow the definition of macro-like structures that can be used to simplify the creation of complex structures. However, this capability can be abused to create excessive demands on a processor's CPU and memory. A small number of nested expansions can result in an exponential growth in demands on memory.
CAPEC-229: Serialized Data Parameter Blowup
This attack exploits certain serialized data parsers (e.g., XML, YAML, etc.) which manage data in an inefficient manner. The attacker crafts an serialized data file with multiple configuration parameters in the same dataset. In a vulnerable parser, this results in a denial of service condition where CPU resources are exhausted because of the parsing algorithm. The weakness being exploited is tied to parser implementation and not language specific.
CAPEC-230: Serialized Data with Nested Payloads
Applications often need to transform data in and out of a data format (e.g., XML and YAML) by using a parser. It may be possible for an adversary to inject data that may have an adverse effect on the parser when it is being processed. Many data format languages allow the definition of macro-like structures that can be used to simplify the creation of complex structures. By nesting these structures, causing the data to be repeatedly substituted, an adversary can cause the parser to consume more resources while processing, causing excessive memory consumption and CPU utilization.
CAPEC-231: Oversized Serialized Data Payloads
An adversary injects oversized serialized data payloads into a parser during data processing to produce adverse effects upon the parser such as exhausting system resources and arbitrary code execution.
CAPEC-469: HTTP DoS
An attacker performs flooding at the HTTP level to bring down only a particular web application rather than anything listening on a TCP/IP connection. This denial of service attack requires substantially fewer packets to be sent which makes DoS harder to detect. This is an equivalent of SYN flood in HTTP. The idea is to keep the HTTP session alive indefinitely and then repeat that hundreds of times. This attack targets resource depletion weaknesses in web server software. The web server will wait to attacker's responses on the initiated HTTP sessions while the connection threads are being exhausted.
CAPEC-482: TCP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the TCP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service. These attacks exploit the weakness within the TCP protocol where there is some state information for the connection the server needs to maintain. This often involves the use of TCP SYN messages.
CAPEC-486: UDP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the UDP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming the available network bandwidth. Additionally, firewalls often open a port for each UDP connection destined for a service with an open UDP port, meaning the firewalls in essence save the connection state thus the high packet nature of a UDP flood can also overwhelm resources allocated to the firewall. UDP attacks can also target services like DNS or VoIP which utilize these protocols. Additionally, due to the session-less nature of the UDP protocol, the source of a packet is easily spoofed making it difficult to find the source of the attack.
CAPEC-487: ICMP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the ICMP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming the available network bandwidth. A typical attack involves a victim server receiving ICMP packets at a high rate from a wide range of source addresses. Additionally, due to the session-less nature of the ICMP protocol, the source of a packet is easily spoofed making it difficult to find the source of the attack.
CAPEC-488: HTTP Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the HTTP protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming resources at the application layer such as web services and their infrastructure. These attacks use legitimate session-based HTTP GET requests designed to consume large amounts of a server's resources. Since these are legitimate sessions this attack is very difficult to detect.
CAPEC-489: SSL Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using the SSL protocol with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a service by consuming all the available resources on the server side. These attacks take advantage of the asymmetric relationship between the processing power used by the client and the processing power used by the server to create a secure connection. In this manner the attacker can make a large number of HTTPS requests on a low provisioned machine to tie up a disproportionately large number of resources on the server. The clients then continue to keep renegotiating the SSL connection. When multiplied by a large number of attacking machines, this attack can result in a crash or loss of service to legitimate users.
CAPEC-490: Amplification
An adversary may execute an amplification where the size of a response is far greater than that of the request that generates it. The goal of this attack is to use a relatively few resources to create a large amount of traffic against a target server. To execute this attack, an adversary send a request to a 3rd party service, spoofing the source address to be that of the target server. The larger response that is generated by the 3rd party service is then sent to the target server. By sending a large number of initial requests, the adversary can generate a tremendous amount of traffic directed at the target. The greater the discrepancy in size between the initial request and the final payload delivered to the target increased the effectiveness of this attack.
CAPEC-491: Quadratic Data Expansion
An adversary exploits macro-like substitution to cause a denial of service situation due to excessive memory being allocated to fully expand the data. The result of this denial of service could cause the application to freeze or crash. This involves defining a very large entity and using it multiple times in a single entity substitution. CAPEC-197 is a similar attack pattern, but it is easier to discover and defend against. This attack pattern does not perform multi-level substitution and therefore does not obviously appear to consume extensive resources.
CAPEC-493: SOAP Array Blowup
An adversary may execute an attack on a web service that uses SOAP messages in communication. By sending a very large SOAP array declaration to the web service, the attacker forces the web service to allocate space for the array elements before they are parsed by the XML parser. The attacker message is typically small in size containing a large array declaration of say 1,000,000 elements and a couple of array elements. This attack targets exhaustion of the memory resources of the web service.
CAPEC-494: TCP Fragmentation
An adversary may execute a TCP Fragmentation attack against a target with the intention of avoiding filtering rules of network controls, by attempting to fragment the TCP packet such that the headers flag field is pushed into the second fragment which typically is not filtered.
CAPEC-495: UDP Fragmentation
An attacker may execute a UDP Fragmentation attack against a target server in an attempt to consume resources such as bandwidth and CPU. IP fragmentation occurs when an IP datagram is larger than the MTU of the route the datagram has to traverse. Typically the attacker will use large UDP packets over 1500 bytes of data which forces fragmentation as ethernet MTU is 1500 bytes. This attack is a variation on a typical UDP flood but it enables more network bandwidth to be consumed with fewer packets. Additionally it has the potential to consume server CPU resources and fill memory buffers associated with the processing and reassembling of fragmented packets.
CAPEC-496: ICMP Fragmentation
An attacker may execute a ICMP Fragmentation attack against a target with the intention of consuming resources or causing a crash. The attacker crafts a large number of identical fragmented IP packets containing a portion of a fragmented ICMP message. The attacker these sends these messages to a target host which causes the host to become non-responsive. Another vector may be sending a fragmented ICMP message to a target host with incorrect sizes in the header which causes the host to hang.
CAPEC-528: XML Flood
An adversary may execute a flooding attack using XML messages with the intent to deny legitimate users access to a web service. These attacks are accomplished by sending a large number of XML based requests and letting the service attempt to parse each one. In many cases this type of an attack will result in a XML Denial of Service (XDoS) due to an application becoming unstable, freezing, or crashing.