Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-770

Allowed

Allocation 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-PM2P-78R8-WJH9

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-27 18:32 – Updated: 2026-08-31 18:31
VLAI
Details

An issue in the NF Discovery endpoint of free5gc v4.0.1 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted snssais query.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-30063"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-08-27T17:17:51Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "An issue in the NF Discovery endpoint of free5gc v4.0.1 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted snssais query.",
  "id": "GHSA-pm2p-78r8-wjh9",
  "modified": "2026-08-31T18:31:21Z",
  "published": "2026-08-27T18:32:22Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-30063"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/free5gc/free5gc/issues/758"
    }
  ],
  "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-PM3X-JRHH-QCR7

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-13 22:58 – Updated: 2026-05-14 20:54
VLAI
Summary
SpiceDB WriteRelationships fails silently if payload is too big
Details

Impact

Users who 1. use the exclusion operator somewhere in their authorization schema 1. have configured their SpiceDB server such that --write-relationships-max-updates-per-call is bigger than 6500 1. issue calls to WriteRelationships with a large enough number of updates that cause the payload to be bigger than what their datastore allows

will

  1. receive a successful response from their WriteRelationships call, when in reality that call failed,
  2. receive incorrect permission check results, if those relationships had to be read to resolve the relation involving the exclusion

Patches

Upgrade to v.145.2.

Workarounds

Set --write-relationships-max-updates-per-call to 1000.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Go",
        "name": "github.com/authzed/spicedb"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.45.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-64529"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2025-11-13T22:58:20Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-11-10T23:15:42Z",
    "severity": "LOW"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\n\nUsers who \n1. use the exclusion operator somewhere in their authorization schema\n1. have configured their SpiceDB server such that `--write-relationships-max-updates-per-call` is bigger than 6500\n1. issue calls to WriteRelationships with a large enough number of updates that cause the payload to be bigger than what their datastore allows\n\nwill \n\n1. receive a successful response from their `WriteRelationships` call, when in reality that call failed,\n2. receive incorrect permission check results, if those relationships had to be read to resolve the relation involving the exclusion\n\n### Patches\n\nUpgrade to v.145.2.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nSet `--write-relationships-max-updates-per-call` to `1000`.",
  "id": "GHSA-pm3x-jrhh-qcr7",
  "modified": "2026-05-14T20:54:58Z",
  "published": "2025-11-13T22:58:20Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/authzed/spicedb/security/advisories/GHSA-pm3x-jrhh-qcr7"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-64529"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/authzed/spicedb/commit/d0cd103a92cc1915636733fb1d1730c2c7f74851"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/authzed/spicedb"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "SpiceDB WriteRelationships fails silently if payload is too big"
}

GHSA-PM6H-6RWH-XXG7

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-07 18:30 – Updated: 2025-11-14 21:30
VLAI
Details

An allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability has been reported to affect File Station 5. If a remote attacker gains a user account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to prevent other systems, applications, or processes from accessing the same type of resource.

We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version: File Station 5 5.5.6.5018 and later

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-53413"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-11-07T16:15:39Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "An allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability has been reported to affect File Station 5. If a remote attacker gains a user account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to prevent other systems, applications, or processes from accessing the same type of resource.\n\nWe have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version:\nFile Station 5 5.5.6.5018 and later",
  "id": "GHSA-pm6h-6rwh-xxg7",
  "modified": "2025-11-14T21:30:28Z",
  "published": "2025-11-07T18:30:29Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-53413"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-25-38"
    }
  ],
  "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:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-PMCC-WJFP-VCHV

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-11 03:31 – Updated: 2026-08-11 03:31
VLAI
Details

SAP Approuter does not sufficiently handle certain requests under specific conditions. An unauthenticated attacker could send specially crafted input that causes the component to crash and restart. Successful exploitation requires specific runtime conditions to be met, making the attack complex to execute. This results in a high impact on availability. There is no impact on confidentiality and integrity.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-58238"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-08-11T01:17:21Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "SAP Approuter does not sufficiently handle certain requests under specific conditions. An unauthenticated attacker could send specially crafted input that causes the component to crash and restart. Successful exploitation requires specific runtime conditions to be met, making the attack complex to execute. This results in a high impact on availability. There is no impact on confidentiality and integrity.",
  "id": "GHSA-pmcc-wjfp-vchv",
  "modified": "2026-08-11T03:31:56Z",
  "published": "2026-08-11T03:31:56Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-58238"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://me.sap.com/notes/3786038"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://url.sap/sapsecuritypatchday"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-PMPJ-JGH3-696Q

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-09 18:31 – Updated: 2026-06-16 18:32
VLAI
Details

Unrestricted resource allocation in AMD uProf may be exploitable to consume excessive system resources, potentially leading to a loss of availability.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-28237"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-06-09T18:16:37Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Unrestricted resource allocation in AMD uProf may be exploitable to consume excessive system resources, potentially leading to a loss of availability.",
  "id": "GHSA-pmpj-jgh3-696q",
  "modified": "2026-06-16T18:32:29Z",
  "published": "2026-06-09T18:31:02Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28237"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/AMD-SB-9025.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-PMV8-RQ9R-6J72

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-20 17:48 – Updated: 2026-08-31 20:03
VLAI
Summary
Axios: Deep formToJSON Key Recursion Can Cause Denial of Service
Details

Summary

Axios versions starting with 0.28.0 contain uncontrolled recursion in formDataToJSON, which is exposed as axios.formToJSON() and used internally when axios serialises FormData with Content-Type: application/json.

If an application passes attacker-controlled FormData field names to this functionality, a field name with thousands of nested bracket segments can exhaust the JavaScript call stack and cause denial of service for that request or, in applications without appropriate error handling, process termination.

Impact

Applications are affected only when untrusted users can control FormData key names that are converted through axios.

Affected paths include direct use of axios.formToJSON() on untrusted FormData and axios requests in which attacker-controlled FormData is sent with Content-Type: application/json.

The observed failure is RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded. In local testing, this error is catchable, so process-wide crash depends on the consuming application's error handling and runtime behaviour.

Affected Functionality

Affected functionality: - axios.formToJSON(formData) - Named ESM export formToJSON - Default transformRequest behaviour for FormData when Content-Type contains application/json

Unaffected functionality: - Normal multipart FormData submission without JSON serialisation - toFormData, which already enforces a maxDepth guard - Axios versions <=0.27.2, where formDataToJSON was not present

Technical Details

The vulnerable code is in lib/helpers/formDataToJSON.js.

parsePropPath() splits a field name such as a[x][x][x] into path segments. buildPath() then recursively processes one segment per call without enforcing a maximum depth:

const result = buildPath(path, value, target[name], index);

A key with thousands of bracket-delimited segments causes thousands of recursive calls and can exceed the JavaScript engine's call stack limit.

Relevant source locations: - lib/helpers/formDataToJSON.js contains the unbounded recursive buildPath(). - lib/axios.js exposes the helper as axios.formToJSON. - index.js exposes formToJSON as a named export. - index.d.ts and index.d.cts declare the public API. - lib/defaults/index.js calls formDataToJSON(data) when JSON-serializing FormData.

The inverse helper, toFormData, already enforces maxDepth and throws AxiosError with ERR_FORM_DATA_DEPTH_EXCEEDED, but formDataToJSON does not have an equivalent guard.

Proof of Concept of Attack

import axios from 'axios';

const fd = new FormData();
fd.append('a' + '[x]'.repeat(15000), 'value');

try {
  axios.formToJSON(fd);
  console.log('not vulnerable');
} catch (e) {
  console.log(`${e.constructor.name}: ${e.message}`);
}

Expected result on affected versions:

RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded

The same condition can be reached via an axios request transformation when attacker-controlled FormData is sent with Content-Type: application/json.

Workarounds

Applications can reject or normalise untrusted form field names before calling axios.formToJSON().

Applications can avoid sending untrusted FormData through axios as JSON unless JSON conversion is required.

Applications should catch errors around formToJSON() or axios requests that transform untrusted FormData.

Original Source ### Summary An uncontrolled recursion vulnerability in `formDataToJSON` allows any user who controls FormData input to crash a Node.js process with a single request. The function recurses once per bracket-delimited segment in a FormData key name with no depth limit, so a key like `a[x][x][x]...` with 15,000+ segments exhausts the call stack. This is a denial-of-service that kills the process via an unrecoverable `RangeError`. The inverse function `toFormData` already enforces a `maxDepth` limit (default 100) for exactly this reason — `formDataToJSON` lacks the equivalent guard. ### Details **Vulnerable function:** `buildPath` in `lib/helpers/formDataToJSON.js`, lines 50–82. `buildPath(path, value, target, index)` is called recursively — once per segment in the parsed property path — with no depth check:
// lib/helpers/formDataToJSON.js, lines 50–82
function buildPath(path, value, target, index) {
  let name = path[index++];              // advance one level
  if (name === '__proto__') return true;
  // ...
  if (!isLast) {
    // ...
    const result = buildPath(path, value, target[name], index);  // recurse — NO depth guard
    // ...
  }
}
The key is first split into segments by `parsePropPath` (line 17), which extracts every `[segment]` via regex. A key with 15,000 bracket pairs produces a 15,001-element array, causing 15,001 recursive calls — well beyond the V8 default stack limit (~10,000–15,000 frames). **`formDataToJSON` is a public API** consumed two ways: 1. **Directly by consumers** — exported as `axios.formToJSON()` (`lib/axios.js:80`), with TypeScript declarations in both `index.d.ts:699` and `index.d.cts:708`, and documented in the API reference in four languages (`docs/pages/advanced/api-reference.md`). 2. **Internally by `transformRequest`** — called at `lib/defaults/index.js:56` when the request body is `FormData` and `Content-Type` contains `application/json`: ```javascript return hasJSONContentType ? JSON.stringify(formDataToJSON(data)) : data; ``` **Contrast with `toFormData`:** The inverse function (`lib/helpers/toFormData.js:118`) enforces `maxDepth` (default 100) and throws `AxiosError` with code `ERR_FORM_DATA_DEPTH_EXCEEDED` when exceeded. `formDataToJSON` has no equivalent protection. ### PoC Requires only Node.js and an unmodified axios v1.x install:
import formDataToJSON from 'axios/lib/helpers/formDataToJSON.js';

// Build a FormData with a single key containing 15,000 nested bracket segments
const fd = new FormData();
const key = "a" + "[x]".repeat(15000);
fd.append(key, "value");

try {
  formDataToJSON(fd);
  console.log("Not vulnerable");
} catch (e) {
  console.log(e.constructor.name + ": " + e.message);
  // RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
}
Verified output on Node.js 22.22.3 against axios v1.16.1 (current `v1.x` HEAD):
RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
The process crashes. In a server context (e.g., Express middleware calling `axios.formToJSON()` on an uploaded form), a single crafted request terminates the process. ### Impact **Denial of Service (process crash).** Any unauthenticated user who can submit FormData to a Node.js application that passes it through `axios.formToJSON()` — or that sends it as a JSON-serialized FormData body via axios — can crash the server process with a single request. The `RangeError` from stack exhaustion is unrecoverable in many contexts (it cannot be reliably caught when the stack is already full). No authentication or special privileges are required; the attacker only needs to control a FormData key name.
Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "axios"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0.28.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.33.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "axios"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "1.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.18.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-67312"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400",
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-20T17:48:18Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-08-06T22:18:25Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\nAxios versions starting with `0.28.0` contain uncontrolled recursion in `formDataToJSON`, which is exposed as `axios.formToJSON()` and used internally when axios serialises `FormData` with `Content-Type: application/json`.\n\nIf an application passes attacker-controlled `FormData` field names to this functionality, a field name with thousands of nested bracket segments can exhaust the JavaScript call stack and cause denial of service for that request or, in applications without appropriate error handling, process termination.\n\n## Impact\n\nApplications are affected only when untrusted users can control `FormData` key names that are converted through axios.\n\nAffected paths include direct use of `axios.formToJSON()` on untrusted `FormData` and axios requests in which attacker-controlled `FormData` is sent with `Content-Type: application/json`.\n\nThe observed failure is `RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded`. In local testing, this error is catchable, so process-wide crash depends on the consuming application\u0027s error handling and runtime behaviour.\n\n## Affected Functionality\n\nAffected functionality:\n- `axios.formToJSON(formData)`\n- Named ESM export `formToJSON`\n- Default `transformRequest` behaviour for `FormData` when `Content-Type` contains `application/json`\n\nUnaffected functionality:\n- Normal multipart `FormData` submission without JSON serialisation\n- `toFormData`, which already enforces a `maxDepth` guard\n- Axios versions `\u003c=0.27.2`, where `formDataToJSON` was not present\n\n## Technical Details\n\nThe vulnerable code is in `lib/helpers/formDataToJSON.js`.\n\n`parsePropPath()` splits a field name such as `a[x][x][x]` into path segments. `buildPath()` then recursively processes one segment per call without enforcing a maximum depth:\n\n```js\nconst result = buildPath(path, value, target[name], index);\n```\n\nA key with thousands of bracket-delimited segments causes thousands of recursive calls and can exceed the JavaScript engine\u0027s call stack limit.\n\nRelevant source locations:\n- `lib/helpers/formDataToJSON.js` contains the unbounded recursive `buildPath()`.\n- `lib/axios.js` exposes the helper as `axios.formToJSON`.\n- `index.js` exposes `formToJSON` as a named export.\n- `index.d.ts` and `index.d.cts` declare the public API.\n- `lib/defaults/index.js` calls `formDataToJSON(data)` when JSON-serializing `FormData`.\n\nThe inverse helper, `toFormData`, already enforces `maxDepth` and throws `AxiosError` with `ERR_FORM_DATA_DEPTH_EXCEEDED`, but `formDataToJSON` does not have an equivalent guard.\n\n## Proof of Concept of Attack\n\n```js\nimport axios from \u0027axios\u0027;\n\nconst fd = new FormData();\nfd.append(\u0027a\u0027 + \u0027[x]\u0027.repeat(15000), \u0027value\u0027);\n\ntry {\n  axios.formToJSON(fd);\n  console.log(\u0027not vulnerable\u0027);\n} catch (e) {\n  console.log(`${e.constructor.name}: ${e.message}`);\n}\n```\n\nExpected result on affected versions:\n\nRangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded\n\nThe same condition can be reached via an axios request transformation when attacker-controlled `FormData` is sent with `Content-Type: application/json`.\n\n## Workarounds\nApplications can reject or normalise untrusted form field names before calling `axios.formToJSON()`.\n\nApplications can avoid sending untrusted `FormData` through axios as JSON unless JSON conversion is required.\n\nApplications should catch errors around `formToJSON()` or axios requests that transform untrusted `FormData`.\n\n\u003cdetails\u003e\n\u003csummary\u003eOriginal Source\u003c/summary\u003e\n\n### Summary\nAn uncontrolled recursion vulnerability in `formDataToJSON` allows any user who controls FormData input to crash a Node.js process with a single request. The function recurses once per bracket-delimited segment in a FormData key name with no depth limit, so a key like `a[x][x][x]...` with 15,000+ segments exhausts the call stack. This is a denial-of-service that kills the process via an unrecoverable `RangeError`. The inverse function `toFormData` already enforces a `maxDepth` limit (default 100) for exactly this reason \u2014 `formDataToJSON` lacks the equivalent guard.\n\n### Details\n**Vulnerable function:** `buildPath` in `lib/helpers/formDataToJSON.js`, lines 50\u201382.\n\n`buildPath(path, value, target, index)` is called recursively \u2014 once per segment in the parsed property path \u2014 with no depth check:\n\n```javascript\n// lib/helpers/formDataToJSON.js, lines 50\u201382\nfunction buildPath(path, value, target, index) {\n  let name = path[index++];              // advance one level\n  if (name === \u0027__proto__\u0027) return true;\n  // ...\n  if (!isLast) {\n    // ...\n    const result = buildPath(path, value, target[name], index);  // recurse \u2014 NO depth guard\n    // ...\n  }\n}\n```\n\nThe key is first split into segments by `parsePropPath` (line 17), which extracts every `[segment]` via regex. A key with 15,000 bracket pairs produces a 15,001-element array, causing 15,001 recursive calls \u2014 well beyond the V8 default stack limit (~10,000\u201315,000 frames).\n\n**`formDataToJSON` is a public API** consumed two ways:\n\n1. **Directly by consumers** \u2014 exported as `axios.formToJSON()` (`lib/axios.js:80`), with TypeScript declarations in both `index.d.ts:699` and `index.d.cts:708`, and documented in the API reference in four languages (`docs/pages/advanced/api-reference.md`).\n\n2. **Internally by `transformRequest`** \u2014 called at `lib/defaults/index.js:56` when the request body is `FormData` and `Content-Type` contains `application/json`:\n   ```javascript\n   return hasJSONContentType ? JSON.stringify(formDataToJSON(data)) : data;\n   ```\n\n**Contrast with `toFormData`:** The inverse function (`lib/helpers/toFormData.js:118`) enforces `maxDepth` (default 100) and throws `AxiosError` with code `ERR_FORM_DATA_DEPTH_EXCEEDED` when exceeded. `formDataToJSON` has no equivalent protection.\n\n### PoC\nRequires only Node.js and an unmodified axios v1.x install:\n\n```javascript\nimport formDataToJSON from \u0027axios/lib/helpers/formDataToJSON.js\u0027;\n\n// Build a FormData with a single key containing 15,000 nested bracket segments\nconst fd = new FormData();\nconst key = \"a\" + \"[x]\".repeat(15000);\nfd.append(key, \"value\");\n\ntry {\n  formDataToJSON(fd);\n  console.log(\"Not vulnerable\");\n} catch (e) {\n  console.log(e.constructor.name + \": \" + e.message);\n  // RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded\n}\n```\n\nVerified output on Node.js 22.22.3 against axios v1.16.1 (current `v1.x` HEAD):\n\n```\nRangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded\n```\n\nThe process crashes. In a server context (e.g., Express middleware calling `axios.formToJSON()` on an uploaded form), a single crafted request terminates the process.\n\n### Impact\n**Denial of Service (process crash).** Any unauthenticated user who can submit FormData to a Node.js application that passes it through `axios.formToJSON()` \u2014 or that sends it as a JSON-serialized FormData body via axios \u2014 can crash the server process with a single request. The `RangeError` from stack exhaustion is unrecoverable in many contexts (it cannot be reliably caught when the stack is already full). No authentication or special privileges are required; the attacker only needs to control a FormData key name.\n\u003c/details\u003e",
  "id": "GHSA-pmv8-rq9r-6j72",
  "modified": "2026-08-31T20:03:15Z",
  "published": "2026-07-20T17:48:18Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/security/advisories/GHSA-pmv8-rq9r-6j72"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-67312"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-68941"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/pull/11000"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/pull/11001"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/commit/1417285c69344bbcc6420a021f67dee0c6fedb2d"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/commit/32fc489632377d214db55bfa4e2c48486a7d7ce2"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/releases/tag/v0.33.0"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/releases/tag/v1.18.0"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/axios-before-denial-of-service-via-formtojson"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Axios: Deep formToJSON Key Recursion Can Cause Denial of Service"
}

GHSA-PP5P-9G8Q-357J

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:14 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:14
VLAI
Details

A vulnerability in the network stack of Cisco NX-OS Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on the affected device. The vulnerability is due to an issue with allocating and freeing memory buffers in the network stack. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted TCP streams to an affected device in a sustained way. A successful exploit could cause the network stack of an affected device to run out of available buffers, impairing operations of control plane and management plane protocols, resulting in a DoS condition. Note: This vulnerability can be triggered only by traffic that is destined to an affected device and cannot be exploited using traffic that transits an affected device. Nexus 1000V Switch for Microsoft Hyper-V is affected in versions prior to 5.2(1)SM3(2.1). Nexus 1000V Switch for VMware vSphere is affected in versions prior to 5.2(1)SV3(4.1a). Nexus 3000 Series Switches are affected in versions prior to 7.0(3)I7(6) and 9.2(2). Nexus 3500 Platform Switches are affected in versions prior to 6.0(2)A8(11), 7.0(3)I7(6), and 9.2(2). Nexus 3600 Platform Switches are affected in versions prior to 7.0(3)F3(5) and 9.2(2). Nexus 5500, 5600, and 6000 Series Switches are affected in versions prior to 7.1(5)N1(1b) and 7.3(5)N1(1). Nexus 7000 and 7700 Series Switches are affected in versions prior to 6.2(22. Nexus 9500 R-Series Line Cards and Fabric Modules are affected in versions prior to 7.0(3)F3(5) and 9.2(2). UCS 6200 and 6300 Series Fabric Interconnect are affected in versions prior to 3.2(3j) and 4.0(2a). UCS 6400 Series Fabric Interconnect are affected in versions prior to 4.0(2a).

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2019-1599"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2019-03-07T20:29:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A vulnerability in the network stack of Cisco NX-OS Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on the affected device. The vulnerability is due to an issue with allocating and freeing memory buffers in the network stack. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted TCP streams to an affected device in a sustained way. A successful exploit could cause the network stack of an affected device to run out of available buffers, impairing operations of control plane and management plane protocols, resulting in a DoS condition. Note: This vulnerability can be triggered only by traffic that is destined to an affected device and cannot be exploited using traffic that transits an affected device. Nexus 1000V Switch for Microsoft Hyper-V is affected in versions prior to 5.2(1)SM3(2.1). Nexus 1000V Switch for VMware vSphere is affected in versions prior to 5.2(1)SV3(4.1a). Nexus 3000 Series Switches are affected in versions prior to 7.0(3)I7(6) and 9.2(2). Nexus 3500 Platform Switches are affected in versions prior to 6.0(2)A8(11), 7.0(3)I7(6), and 9.2(2). Nexus 3600 Platform Switches are affected in versions prior to 7.0(3)F3(5) and 9.2(2). Nexus 5500, 5600, and 6000 Series Switches are affected in versions prior to 7.1(5)N1(1b) and 7.3(5)N1(1). Nexus 7000 and 7700 Series Switches are affected in versions prior to 6.2(22. Nexus 9500 R-Series Line Cards and Fabric Modules are affected in versions prior to 7.0(3)F3(5) and 9.2(2). UCS 6200 and 6300 Series Fabric Interconnect are affected in versions prior to 3.2(3j) and 4.0(2a). UCS 6400 Series Fabric Interconnect are affected in versions prior to 4.0(2a).",
  "id": "GHSA-pp5p-9g8q-357j",
  "modified": "2022-05-13T01:14:49Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:14:49Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-1599"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190306-nxos-netstack"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/107342"
    }
  ],
  "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:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-PP6C-GR5W-3C5G

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-06 21:56 – Updated: 2026-05-14 20:42
VLAI
Summary
python-multipart has Denial of Service via unbounded multipart part headers
Details

Summary

python-multipart has a denial of service vulnerability in multipart part header parsing. When parsing multipart/form-data, MultipartParser previously had no limit on the number of part headers or the size of an individual part header. An attacker could send a request with either many repeated headers without terminating the header block or a single very large header value, causing excessive CPU work before request rejection or completion.

Impact

Applications that parse attacker-controlled multipart/form-data with affected versions of python-multipart can experience CPU exhaustion. ASGI applications using Starlette, FastAPI, or other frameworks that invoke python-multipart may have worker or event-loop delays while processing malicious upload requests.

Details

The affected parser states are HEADER_FIELD_START, HEADER_FIELD, HEADER_VALUE_START, HEADER_VALUE, and HEADER_VALUE_ALMOST_DONE. The issue can be triggered by:

  • A multipart part with an oversized individual header value.
  • A multipart part with many repeated header lines or an unterminated header block.

Both variants are addressed by enforcing default parser limits for maximum header count and maximum header size.

Mitigation

Upgrade to python-multipart 0.0.27 or later.

If upgrading is not immediately possible, reduce exposure by enforcing request body size limits at the server, proxy, or framework layer. This is only a mitigation; affected versions of python-multipart still parse multipart part headers without the default header count and header size limits.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "python-multipart"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.0.27"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-42561"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-06T21:56:14Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-05-13T21:16:47Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\n\n`python-multipart` has a denial of service vulnerability in multipart part header parsing. When parsing `multipart/form-data`, `MultipartParser` previously had no limit on the number of part headers or the size of an individual part header. An attacker could send a request with either many repeated headers without terminating the header block or a single very large header value, causing excessive CPU work before request rejection or completion.\n\n### Impact\n\nApplications that parse attacker-controlled `multipart/form-data` with affected versions of `python-multipart` can experience CPU exhaustion. ASGI applications using Starlette, FastAPI, or other frameworks that invoke `python-multipart` may have worker or event-loop delays while processing malicious upload requests.\n\n### Details\n\nThe affected parser states are `HEADER_FIELD_START`, `HEADER_FIELD`, `HEADER_VALUE_START`, `HEADER_VALUE`, and `HEADER_VALUE_ALMOST_DONE`. The issue can be triggered by:\n\n- A multipart part with an oversized individual header value.\n- A multipart part with many repeated header lines or an unterminated header block.\n\nBoth variants are addressed by enforcing default parser limits for maximum header count and maximum header size.\n\n### Mitigation\n\nUpgrade to `python-multipart` `0.0.27` or later.\n\nIf upgrading is not immediately possible, reduce exposure by enforcing request body size limits at the server, proxy, or framework layer. This is only a mitigation; affected versions of `python-multipart` still parse multipart part headers without the default header count and header size limits.",
  "id": "GHSA-pp6c-gr5w-3c5g",
  "modified": "2026-05-14T20:42:16Z",
  "published": "2026-05-06T21:56:14Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Kludex/python-multipart/security/advisories/GHSA-pp6c-gr5w-3c5g"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42561"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/Kludex/python-multipart"
    }
  ],
  "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": "python-multipart has Denial of Service via unbounded multipart part headers"
}

GHSA-PP9R-XG4C-8J4X

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-19 12:44 – Updated: 2026-03-25 20:48
VLAI
Summary
Salvo Affected by Denial of Service via Unbounded Memory Allocation in Form Data Parsing
Details

Summary

Salvo's form data parsing implementations (form_data() method and Extractible macro) do not enforce payload size limits before reading request bodies into memory. This allows attackers to cause Out-of-Memory (OOM) conditions by sending extremely large payloads, leading to service crashes and denial of service.

Details

Vulnerability Description

Three attack vectors exist in Salvo's form handling:

  1. URL-encoded form data (application/x-www-form-urlencoded)
  2. Request::form_data() calls BodyExt::collect(body) which reads the entire body into memory without size checking
  3. Affects handlers using req.form_data().await directly

  4. Multipart form data (multipart/form-data)

  5. Similar unbounded memory allocation during parsing
  6. Affects handlers processing multipart uploads

  7. Extractible macro

  8. #[derive(Extractible)] with #[salvo(extract(default_source(from = "body")))] internally calls form_data()
  9. Vulnerabilities propagate to all extractors using body sources

Root Cause

The FormData::read() implementation prioritizes convenience over safety by reading entire request bodies before validation. Even when Request::payload_with_max_size() is available, it's not automatically applied in the form parsing path.

PoC

  1. run Extract data from request example in readme.md in docker file with limited memory say 100mb.
  2. Send application/x-www-form-urlencoded OR multipart/form-data payload to the endpoint.
  3. The server process OOM-crashes, instead of returning 413 error.

Impact

Immediate Effects

  • Service Unavailability: Servers crash under memory pressure
  • Resource Exhaustion: Single request can consume all available memory
  • Cascading Failures: In containerized environments, OOM can affect other services

Attack Characteristics

  • Low Cost: Attacker needs minimal bandwidth (header only, body can be streamed)
  • No Authentication: Exploitable on public endpoints
  • Difficult to Rate-Limit: Traditional rate limiting may not prevent single large request
  • Amplification: Small network cost → large memory consumption

Real-World Scenarios

  1. Public API endpoints accepting form data
  2. User registration/profile update handlers
  3. File upload endpoints using multipart forms
  4. Any endpoint using #[derive(Extractible)] with body sources

Suggestion: Make Multipart File Upload Handling Explicit Opt-In

Problem Statement

Currently, Salvo's multipart form data parsing automatically handles file uploads without explicit developer intent. This creates several security and usability concerns:

  1. Unintended File Storage: Developers may unknowingly accept file uploads when they only intended to handle text fields
  2. Disk Space Exhaustion: Automatic file buffering to disk can fill storage without proper limits
  3. Resource Cleanup: Temporary files may not be properly cleaned up if handlers don't expect them
  4. Attack Surface: Endpoints inadvertently become file upload targets
Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "salvo"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.89.3"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-33241"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-19T12:44:56Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-03-24T00:16:29Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\nSalvo\u0027s form data parsing implementations (`form_data()` method and `Extractible` macro) do not enforce payload size limits before reading request bodies into memory. This allows attackers to cause Out-of-Memory (OOM) conditions by sending extremely large payloads, leading to service crashes and denial of service.\n\n## Details\n### Vulnerability Description\nThree attack vectors exist in Salvo\u0027s form handling:\n\n1. **URL-encoded form data** (`application/x-www-form-urlencoded`)\n   - `Request::form_data()` calls `BodyExt::collect(body)` which reads the entire body into memory without size checking\n   - Affects handlers using `req.form_data().await` directly\n\n2. **Multipart form data** (`multipart/form-data`)\n   - Similar unbounded memory allocation during parsing\n   - Affects handlers processing multipart uploads\n\n3. **Extractible macro**\n   - `#[derive(Extractible)]` with `#[salvo(extract(default_source(from = \"body\")))]` internally calls `form_data()`\n   - Vulnerabilities propagate to all extractors using body sources\n\n### Root Cause\nThe `FormData::read()` implementation prioritizes convenience over safety by reading entire request bodies before validation. Even when `Request::payload_with_max_size()` is available, it\u0027s not automatically applied in the form parsing path.\n\n### PoC\n1. run `Extract data from request` example in readme.md in docker file with limited memory say 100mb.\n2. Send `application/x-www-form-urlencoded` OR `multipart/form-data` payload to the endpoint.\n3. The server process OOM-crashes, instead of returning 413 error.\n\n\n## Impact\n### Immediate Effects\n- **Service Unavailability**: Servers crash under memory pressure\n- **Resource Exhaustion**: Single request can consume all available memory\n- **Cascading Failures**: In containerized environments, OOM can affect other services\n\n### Attack Characteristics\n- **Low Cost**: Attacker needs minimal bandwidth (header only, body can be streamed)\n- **No Authentication**: Exploitable on public endpoints\n- **Difficult to Rate-Limit**: Traditional rate limiting may not prevent single large request\n- **Amplification**: Small network cost \u2192 large memory consumption\n\n### Real-World Scenarios\n1. Public API endpoints accepting form data\n2. User registration/profile update handlers\n3. File upload endpoints using multipart forms\n4. Any endpoint using `#[derive(Extractible)]` with body sources\n\n## Suggestion: Make Multipart File Upload Handling Explicit Opt-In\n\n### Problem Statement\n\nCurrently, Salvo\u0027s multipart form data parsing automatically handles file uploads without explicit developer intent. This creates several security and usability concerns:\n\n1. **Unintended File Storage**: Developers may unknowingly accept file uploads when they only intended to handle text fields\n2. **Disk Space Exhaustion**: Automatic file buffering to disk can fill storage without proper limits\n3. **Resource Cleanup**: Temporary files may not be properly cleaned up if handlers don\u0027t expect them\n4. **Attack Surface**: Endpoints inadvertently become file upload targets",
  "id": "GHSA-pp9r-xg4c-8j4x",
  "modified": "2026-03-25T20:48:57Z",
  "published": "2026-03-19T12:44:56Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/salvo-rs/salvo/security/advisories/GHSA-pp9r-xg4c-8j4x"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33241"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/salvo-rs/salvo"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/salvo-rs/salvo/releases/tag/v0.89.3"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Salvo Affected by Denial of Service via Unbounded Memory Allocation in Form Data Parsing"
}

GHSA-PPFP-WFPF-4F6C

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:48 – Updated: 2022-08-06 00:00
VLAI
Details

A vulnerability due to the improper handling of direct memory access (DMA) buffers on EX4300 switches on Juniper Networks Junos OS allows an attacker sending specific unicast frames to trigger a Denial of Service (DoS) condition by exhausting DMA buffers, causing the FPC to crash and the device to restart. The DMA buffer leak is seen when receiving these specific, valid unicast frames on an interface without Layer 2 Protocol Tunneling (L2PT) or dot1x configured. Interfaces with either L2PT or dot1x configured are not vulnerable to this issue. When this issue occurs, DMA buffer usage keeps increasing and the following error log messages may be observed: Apr 14 14:29:34.360 /kernel: pid 64476 (pfex_junos), uid 0: exited on signal 11 (core dumped) Apr 14 14:29:33.790 init: pfe-manager (PID 64476) terminated by signal number 11. Core dumped! The DMA buffers on the FPC can be monitored by the executing vty command 'show heap': ID Base Total(b) Free(b) Used(b) % Name -- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --- ----------- 0 4a46000 268435456 238230496 30204960 11 Kernel 1 18a46000 67108864 17618536 49490328 73 Bcm_sdk 2 23737000 117440512 18414552 99025960 84 DMA buf <<<<< keeps increasing 3 2a737000 16777216 16777216 0 0 DMA desc This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS on the EX4300: 17.3 versions prior to 17.3R3-S11; 17.4 versions prior to 17.4R2-S13, 17.4R3-S4; 18.1 versions prior to 18.1R3-S12; 18.2 versions prior to 18.2R2-S8, 18.2R3-S7; 18.3 versions prior to 18.3R3-S4; 18.4 versions prior to 18.4R1-S8, 18.4R2-S7, 18.4R3-S7; 19.1 versions prior to 19.1R1-S6, 19.1R2-S2, 19.1R3-S4; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R1-S6, 19.2R3-S2; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R3-S2; 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R2-S3, 19.4R3-S1; 20.1 versions prior to 20.1R2; 20.2 versions prior to 20.2R2-S1, 20.2R3; 20.3 versions prior to 20.3R1-S1, 20.3R2.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-0242"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-119",
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-04-22T20:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "A vulnerability due to the improper handling of direct memory access (DMA) buffers on EX4300 switches on Juniper Networks Junos OS allows an attacker sending specific unicast frames to trigger a Denial of Service (DoS) condition by exhausting DMA buffers, causing the FPC to crash and the device to restart. The DMA buffer leak is seen when receiving these specific, valid unicast frames on an interface without Layer 2 Protocol Tunneling (L2PT) or dot1x configured. Interfaces with either L2PT or dot1x configured are not vulnerable to this issue. When this issue occurs, DMA buffer usage keeps increasing and the following error log messages may be observed: Apr 14 14:29:34.360 /kernel: pid 64476 (pfex_junos), uid 0: exited on signal 11 (core dumped) Apr 14 14:29:33.790 init: pfe-manager (PID 64476) terminated by signal number 11. Core dumped! The DMA buffers on the FPC can be monitored by the executing vty command \u0027show heap\u0027: ID Base Total(b) Free(b) Used(b) % Name -- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --- ----------- 0 4a46000 268435456 238230496 30204960 11 Kernel 1 18a46000 67108864 17618536 49490328 73 Bcm_sdk 2 23737000 117440512 18414552 99025960 84 DMA buf \u003c\u003c\u003c\u003c\u003c keeps increasing 3 2a737000 16777216 16777216 0 0 DMA desc This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS on the EX4300: 17.3 versions prior to 17.3R3-S11; 17.4 versions prior to 17.4R2-S13, 17.4R3-S4; 18.1 versions prior to 18.1R3-S12; 18.2 versions prior to 18.2R2-S8, 18.2R3-S7; 18.3 versions prior to 18.3R3-S4; 18.4 versions prior to 18.4R1-S8, 18.4R2-S7, 18.4R3-S7; 19.1 versions prior to 19.1R1-S6, 19.1R2-S2, 19.1R3-S4; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R1-S6, 19.2R3-S2; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R3-S2; 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R2-S3, 19.4R3-S1; 20.1 versions prior to 20.1R2; 20.2 versions prior to 20.2R2-S1, 20.2R3; 20.3 versions prior to 20.3R1-S1, 20.3R2.",
  "id": "GHSA-ppfp-wfpf-4f6c",
  "modified": "2022-08-06T00:00:42Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T17:48:12Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-0242"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://kb.juniper.net/JSA11135"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

Mitigation
Requirements

Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.

Mitigation
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design

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
Implementation

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
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design
  • 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
Architecture and Design

Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.

Mitigation MIT-38.1
Architecture and Design Implementation
  • 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
Operation Architecture and Design

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.