Common Weakness Enumeration
CWE-770
AllowedAllocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Abstraction: Base · Status: Incomplete
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
1852 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
CVE-2026-96638 (GCVE-0-2026-96638)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-10-21 20:47 – Updated: 2026-10-28 18:21
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Pillow: BMP RLE decoder memory-amplification DoS via unbounded delta escape / absolute mode
Summary
Pillow is a Python imaging library. From 9.1.0 until 13.0.0, BmpRleDecoder.decode() in src/PIL/BmpImagePlugin.py permits crafted RLE BMP delta escapes and absolute-mode runs to append beyond the remaining dest_length without a per-branch cap. A delta can add roughly 255 image rows in one iteration, so a kilobyte-sized file with a large but permitted width can expand the data bytearray to hundreds of megabytes or more, causing memory-exhaustion denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 13.0.0.
Severity
6.5 (Medium)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-10-28 18:20 UTC
CWE
Assigner
GitHub_M
CNA
References
4 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/security/… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
| https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/pull/10015 | x_refsource_MISC |
| https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/commit/e7… | x_refsource_MISC |
| https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/releases/… | x_refsource_MISC |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| python-pillow | Pillow |
Affected:
>= 9.1.0, < 13.0.0
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-96638",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-10-28T18:20:26.959004Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-28T18:21:53.700Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "Pillow",
"vendor": "python-pillow",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 9.1.0, \u003c 13.0.0"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Pillow is a Python imaging library. From 9.1.0 until 13.0.0, BmpRleDecoder.decode() in src/PIL/BmpImagePlugin.py permits crafted RLE BMP delta escapes and absolute-mode runs to append beyond the remaining dest_length without a per-branch cap. A delta can add roughly 255 image rows in one iteration, so a kilobyte-sized file with a large but permitted width can expand the data bytearray to hundreds of megabytes or more, causing memory-exhaustion denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 13.0.0."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 6.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "REQUIRED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-400",
"description": "CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-21T20:47:21.767Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/security/advisories/GHSA-24rc-8hj2-v98c",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/security/advisories/GHSA-24rc-8hj2-v98c"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/pull/10015",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/pull/10015"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/commit/e7794835e323ff2691d9b3a974cade1a44301b9a",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/commit/e7794835e323ff2691d9b3a974cade1a44301b9a"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/releases/tag/13.0.0",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/releases/tag/13.0.0"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-24rc-8hj2-v98c",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Pillow: BMP RLE decoder memory-amplification DoS via unbounded delta escape / absolute mode"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-96638",
"datePublished": "2026-10-21T20:47:21.767Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-23T14:35:50.130Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-28T18:21:53.700Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-96618 (GCVE-0-2026-96618)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-10-12 15:29 – Updated: 2026-10-16 17:33
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Hex exhausts memory and disk on oversized or compressed responses from an untrusted mirror
Summary
Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) vulnerability in hexpm hex allows an untrusted package mirror to exhaust the memory or disk space of the machine running mix deps.get, mix deps.update, mix hex.package fetch or mix hex.docs fetch.
Hex treats a mirror configured with HEX_MIRROR_URL, HEX_MIRROR or mirror_url as untrusted: it doesn't send credentials to it, and it checks registry signatures and package checksums that the mirror can't forge. Several response paths consume memory or disk in proportion to what the mirror sends before any of those checks run.
Hex.HTTP.request/5 reads the whole response body into memory and decompresses it with :zlib.gunzip/1 whenever the response's Content-Encoding contains gzip, with no limit on the compressed or decompressed size. Hex doesn't ask for compressed responses, so the server decides whether this step runs. It applies to registry, package, docs and API responses.
Package tarballs have no download size limit. Hex 2.5.1 holds the whole tarball in memory and writes it to the cache, and the development branch streams it to a temporary file; the 16 MiB tarball limit is checked only when the file is unpacked. The tarball is then unpacked, into deps/<app> in 2.5.1 and into a staging directory on the development branch, before its checksums are compared with the registry.
mix hex.docs fetch, and mix hex.docs offline when docs are missing, write the docs tarball to disk and extract it with :mix_hex_erl_tar.extract/2 without the 16 MiB compressed and 128 MiB decompressed limits that mix_hex_tarball:unpack_docs/3 applies. The signed registry doesn't cover docs tarballs, so nothing checks them.
Registry responses are also decompressed before their signature is checked, in hex_core code that Hex vendors; that part is tracked in https://github.com/hexpm/hex_core/security/advisories/GHSA-7c4r-cgf9-9jmq.
This issue affects hex: from 0.11.2 before 2.5.2.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-10-16 17:33 UTC
CWE
Assigner
EEF
CNA
References
6 references
Impacted products
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-96618",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-10-16T17:33:32.316951Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-16T17:33:51.114Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:hexpm:hex:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"\u0027Elixir.Hex.HTTP\u0027",
"\u0027Elixir.Hex.SCM\u0027",
"\u0027Elixir.Mix.Tasks.Hex.Docs\u0027"
],
"packageName": "hex",
"packageURL": "pkg:otp/hex?repository_url=https:%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fhexpm%2Fhex\u0026vcs_url=repository_url=git%2Bhttps:%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fhexpm%2Fhex.git",
"product": "hex",
"programFiles": [
"lib/hex/http.ex",
"lib/hex/scm.ex",
"lib/mix/tasks/hex.docs.ex"
],
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.Hex.HTTP\u0027:request/5"
},
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.Hex.SCM\u0027:fetch/3"
},
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.Hex.SCM\u0027:update/1"
},
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.Mix.Tasks.Hex.Docs\u0027:run/1"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/hexpm/hex",
"vendor": "hexpm",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "2.5.2",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0.11.2",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
},
{
"collectionURL": "https://github.com",
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:hexpm:hex:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"\u0027Elixir.Hex.HTTP\u0027",
"\u0027Elixir.Hex.SCM\u0027",
"\u0027Elixir.Mix.Tasks.Hex.Docs\u0027"
],
"packageName": "hexpm/hex",
"packageURL": "pkg:github/hexpm/hex",
"product": "hex",
"programFiles": [
"lib/hex/http.ex",
"lib/hex/scm.ex",
"lib/mix/tasks/hex.docs.ex"
],
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.Hex.HTTP\u0027:request/5"
},
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.Hex.SCM\u0027:fetch/3"
},
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.Hex.SCM\u0027:update/1"
},
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.Mix.Tasks.Hex.Docs\u0027:run/1"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/hexpm/hex",
"vendor": "hexpm",
"versions": [
{
"changes": [
{
"at": "bb5189eade682c5fc3f98d9725973a7beb4e1deb",
"status": "unaffected"
},
{
"at": "08956100a8283ba500a123e5539ac64d5d7e91d8",
"status": "unaffected"
}
],
"lessThan": "*",
"status": "affected",
"version": "51ea632424fb6ea8765148f96dc25dfeb526b1f8",
"versionType": "git"
}
]
}
],
"configurations": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eAffects users who fetch packages or docs through a mirror set with \u003ccode\u003eHEX_MIRROR_URL\u003c/code\u003e, \u003ccode\u003eHEX_MIRROR\u003c/code\u003e or \u003ccode\u003emirror_url\u003c/code\u003e. Fetches from repo.hex.pm over HTTPS aren\u0027t affected unless TLS verification is broken. A trusted mirror (\u003ccode\u003eHEX_TRUSTED_MIRROR_URL\u003c/code\u003e) or a self-hosted repository can do the same, but Hex already trusts those with credentials.\u003c/p\u003e"
},
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/markdown",
"value": "Affects users who fetch packages or docs through a mirror set with `HEX_MIRROR_URL`, `HEX_MIRROR` or `mirror_url`. Fetches from repo.hex.pm over HTTPS aren\u0027t affected unless TLS verification is broken. A trusted mirror (`HEX_TRUSTED_MIRROR_URL`) or a self-hosted repository can do the same, but Hex already trusts those with credentials."
}
],
"value": "Affects users who fetch packages or docs through a mirror set with HEX_MIRROR_URL, HEX_MIRROR or mirror_url. Fetches from repo.hex.pm over HTTPS aren\u0027t affected unless TLS verification is broken. A trusted mirror (HEX_TRUSTED_MIRROR_URL) or a self-hosted repository can do the same, but Hex already trusts those with credentials."
}
],
"cpeApplicability": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:hexpm:hex:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "2.5.2",
"versionStartIncluding": "0.11.2",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
],
"operator": "AND"
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Peter Ullrich"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Eric Meadows-J\u00f6nsson"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "analyst",
"value": "Jonatan M\u00e4nnchen / EEF"
}
],
"dateAssigned": "2026-10-10T13:00:30.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eImproper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) vulnerability in hexpm hex allows an untrusted package mirror to exhaust the memory or disk space of the machine running \u003ccode\u003emix deps.get\u003c/code\u003e, \u003ccode\u003emix deps.update\u003c/code\u003e, \u003ccode\u003emix hex.package fetch\u003c/code\u003e or \u003ccode\u003emix hex.docs fetch\u003c/code\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHex treats a mirror configured with \u003ccode\u003eHEX_MIRROR_URL\u003c/code\u003e, \u003ccode\u003eHEX_MIRROR\u003c/code\u003e or \u003ccode\u003emirror_url\u003c/code\u003e as untrusted: it doesn\u0027t send credentials to it, and it checks registry signatures and package checksums that the mirror can\u0027t forge. Several response paths consume memory or disk in proportion to what the mirror sends before any of those checks run.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ccode\u003eHex.HTTP.request/5\u003c/code\u003e reads the whole response body into memory and decompresses it with \u003ccode\u003e:zlib.gunzip/1\u003c/code\u003e whenever the response\u0027s \u003ccode\u003eContent-Encoding\u003c/code\u003e contains \u003ccode\u003egzip\u003c/code\u003e, with no limit on the compressed or decompressed size. Hex doesn\u0027t ask for compressed responses, so the server decides whether this step runs. It applies to registry, package, docs and API responses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePackage tarballs have no download size limit. Hex 2.5.1 holds the whole tarball in memory and writes it to the cache, and the development branch streams it to a temporary file; the 16 MiB tarball limit is checked only when the file is unpacked. The tarball is then unpacked, into \u003ccode\u003edeps/\u0026lt;app\u0026gt;\u003c/code\u003e in 2.5.1 and into a staging directory on the development branch, before its checksums are compared with the registry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ccode\u003emix hex.docs fetch\u003c/code\u003e, and \u003ccode\u003emix hex.docs offline\u003c/code\u003e when docs are missing, write the docs tarball to disk and extract it with \u003ccode\u003e:mix_hex_erl_tar.extract/2\u003c/code\u003e without the 16 MiB compressed and 128 MiB decompressed limits that \u003ccode\u003emix_hex_tarball:unpack_docs/3\u003c/code\u003e applies. The signed registry doesn\u0027t cover docs tarballs, so nothing checks them.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegistry responses are also decompressed before their signature is checked, in hex_core code that Hex vendors; that part is tracked in \u003ca href=\"https://github.com/hexpm/hex_core/security/advisories/GHSA-7c4r-cgf9-9jmq\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehttps://github.com/hexpm/hex_core/security/advisories/GHSA-7c4r-cgf9-9jmq\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis issue affects hex: from 0.11.2 before 2.5.2.\u003c/p\u003e"
},
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/markdown",
"value": "Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) vulnerability in hexpm hex allows an untrusted package mirror to exhaust the memory or disk space of the machine running `mix deps.get`, `mix deps.update`, `mix hex.package fetch` or `mix hex.docs fetch`.\n\nHex treats a mirror configured with `HEX_MIRROR_URL`, `HEX_MIRROR` or `mirror_url` as untrusted: it doesn\u0027t send credentials to it, and it checks registry signatures and package checksums that the mirror can\u0027t forge. Several response paths consume memory or disk in proportion to what the mirror sends before any of those checks run.\n\n`Hex.HTTP.request/5` reads the whole response body into memory and decompresses it with `:zlib.gunzip/1` whenever the response\u0027s `Content-Encoding` contains `gzip`, with no limit on the compressed or decompressed size. Hex doesn\u0027t ask for compressed responses, so the server decides whether this step runs. It applies to registry, package, docs and API responses.\n\nPackage tarballs have no download size limit. Hex 2.5.1 holds the whole tarball in memory and writes it to the cache, and the development branch streams it to a temporary file; the 16 MiB tarball limit is checked only when the file is unpacked. The tarball is then unpacked, into `deps/\u003capp\u003e` in 2.5.1 and into a staging directory on the development branch, before its checksums are compared with the registry.\n\n`mix hex.docs fetch`, and `mix hex.docs offline` when docs are missing, write the docs tarball to disk and extract it with `:mix_hex_erl_tar.extract/2` without the 16 MiB compressed and 128 MiB decompressed limits that `mix_hex_tarball:unpack_docs/3` applies. The signed registry doesn\u0027t cover docs tarballs, so nothing checks them.\n\nRegistry responses are also decompressed before their signature is checked, in hex_core code that Hex vendors; that part is tracked in https://github.com/hexpm/hex_core/security/advisories/GHSA-7c4r-cgf9-9jmq.\n\nThis issue affects hex: from 0.11.2 before 2.5.2."
}
],
"value": "Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) vulnerability in hexpm hex allows an untrusted package mirror to exhaust the memory or disk space of the machine running mix deps.get, mix deps.update, mix hex.package fetch or mix hex.docs fetch.\n\nHex treats a mirror configured with HEX_MIRROR_URL, HEX_MIRROR or mirror_url as untrusted: it doesn\u0027t send credentials to it, and it checks registry signatures and package checksums that the mirror can\u0027t forge. Several response paths consume memory or disk in proportion to what the mirror sends before any of those checks run.\n\nHex.HTTP.request/5 reads the whole response body into memory and decompresses it with :zlib.gunzip/1 whenever the response\u0027s Content-Encoding contains gzip, with no limit on the compressed or decompressed size. Hex doesn\u0027t ask for compressed responses, so the server decides whether this step runs. It applies to registry, package, docs and API responses.\n\nPackage tarballs have no download size limit. Hex 2.5.1 holds the whole tarball in memory and writes it to the cache, and the development branch streams it to a temporary file; the 16 MiB tarball limit is checked only when the file is unpacked. The tarball is then unpacked, into deps/\u003capp\u003e in 2.5.1 and into a staging directory on the development branch, before its checksums are compared with the registry.\n\nmix hex.docs fetch, and mix hex.docs offline when docs are missing, write the docs tarball to disk and extract it with :mix_hex_erl_tar.extract/2 without the 16 MiB compressed and 128 MiB decompressed limits that mix_hex_tarball:unpack_docs/3 applies. The signed registry doesn\u0027t cover docs tarballs, so nothing checks them.\n\nRegistry responses are also decompressed before their signature is checked, in hex_core code that Hex vendors; that part is tracked in https://github.com/hexpm/hex_core/security/advisories/GHSA-7c4r-cgf9-9jmq.\n\nThis issue affects hex: from 0.11.2 before 2.5.2."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-130",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eA mirror operator, or an attacker who controls the mirror\u0027s responses, can make Hex allocate memory or write data far larger than what it sent: in tests against Hex main 851b938, a 65 KB gzip-encoded response decompressed to 64 MiB in memory, a 17 MiB tarball was downloaded in full despite the 16 MiB limit, and a 131 KB docs tarball wrote 129 MiB to disk. Larger responses stop the Erlang VM running Mix or fill the disk, failing builds and CI jobs, and a full disk affects other processes on the machine. No package code has to run, and the mirror doesn\u0027t need the repository\u0027s signing key.\u003c/p\u003e"
},
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/markdown",
"value": "A mirror operator, or an attacker who controls the mirror\u0027s responses, can make Hex allocate memory or write data far larger than what it sent: in tests against Hex main 851b938, a 65 KB gzip-encoded response decompressed to 64 MiB in memory, a 17 MiB tarball was downloaded in full despite the 16 MiB limit, and a 131 KB docs tarball wrote 129 MiB to disk. Larger responses stop the Erlang VM running Mix or fill the disk, failing builds and CI jobs, and a full disk affects other processes on the machine. No package code has to run, and the mirror doesn\u0027t need the repository\u0027s signing key."
}
],
"value": "A mirror operator, or an attacker who controls the mirror\u0027s responses, can make Hex allocate memory or write data far larger than what it sent: in tests against Hex main 851b938, a 65 KB gzip-encoded response decompressed to 64 MiB in memory, a 17 MiB tarball was downloaded in full despite the 16 MiB limit, and a 131 KB docs tarball wrote 129 MiB to disk. Larger responses stop the Erlang VM running Mix or fill the disk, failing builds and CI jobs, and a full disk affects other processes on the machine. No package code has to run, and the mirror doesn\u0027t need the repository\u0027s signing key."
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 2.1,
"baseSeverity": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "ACTIVE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "LOW",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-409",
"description": "CWE-409 Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-12T15:29:19.117Z",
"orgId": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"shortName": "EEF"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "GitHub Advisory",
"tags": [
"related",
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://github.com/hexpm/hex/security/advisories/GHSA-gf42-pg2f-63jp"
},
{
"name": "EEF CNA record for CVE-2026-96618",
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-96618.html"
},
{
"name": "OSV record EEF-CVE-2026-96618",
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-96618"
},
{
"name": "Introducing commit 51ea632 in hexpm/hex",
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://github.com/hexpm/hex/commit/51ea632424fb6ea8765148f96dc25dfeb526b1f8"
},
{
"name": "Fix commit bb5189e in hexpm/hex",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/hexpm/hex/commit/bb5189eade682c5fc3f98d9725973a7beb4e1deb"
},
{
"name": "Fix commit 0895610 in hexpm/hex",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/hexpm/hex/commit/08956100a8283ba500a123e5539ac64d5d7e91d8"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eUpgrade Hex to 2.5.2 or later, for example with \u003ccode\u003emix local.hex\u003c/code\u003e. Hex then stops downloading a registry file, package, docs tarball or other file from a repository or mirror once it\u0027s larger than 16 MiB, including after decompressing a gzip-encoded response, and checks packages against the registry checksum before writing them to the package cache or unpacking a cached copy.\u003c/p\u003e"
},
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/markdown",
"value": "Upgrade Hex to 2.5.2 or later, for example with `mix local.hex`. Hex then stops downloading a registry file, package, docs tarball or other file from a repository or mirror once it\u0027s larger than 16 MiB, including after decompressing a gzip-encoded response, and checks packages against the registry checksum before writing them to the package cache or unpacking a cached copy."
}
],
"value": "Upgrade Hex to 2.5.2 or later, for example with mix local.hex. Hex then stops downloading a registry file, package, docs tarball or other file from a repository or mirror once it\u0027s larger than 16 MiB, including after decompressing a gzip-encoded response, and checks packages against the registry checksum before writing them to the package cache or unpacking a cached copy."
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Hex exhausts memory and disk on oversized or compressed responses from an untrusted mirror",
"workarounds": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eFetch from repo.hex.pm or a mirror you operate. Running Mix under operating system memory and disk limits, such as container limits, confines the effect to that container.\u003c/p\u003e"
},
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/markdown",
"value": "Fetch from repo.hex.pm or a mirror you operate. Running Mix under operating system memory and disk limits, such as container limits, confines the effect to that container."
}
],
"value": "Fetch from repo.hex.pm or a mirror you operate. Running Mix under operating system memory and disk limits, such as container limits, confines the effect to that container."
}
],
"x_proofOfConcept": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRun a loopback HTTP server that answers with a 65,255-byte gzip stream decompressing to 64 MiB and \u003ccode\u003eContent-Encoding: gzip\u003c/code\u003e. \u003ccode\u003eHex.HTTP.request(:get, url, %{}, nil)\u003c/code\u003e returns a 67,108,864-byte body; peak RSS was 220 MiB, against 91 MiB for an uncompressed control.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eServe a 17 MiB file as a package tarball. \u003ccode\u003eHex.Repo.get_tarball/3\u003c/code\u003e returns all of it, and only the following unpack fails with \u003ccode\u003e{:tarball, :too_big}\u003c/code\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eServe a 131,574-byte docs tarball containing a 129 MiB file and set \u003ccode\u003eHEX_MIRROR_URL\u003c/code\u003e to the server. \u003ccode\u003emix hex.docs fetch probe 1.0.0\u003c/code\u003e writes the 129 MiB file and reports success.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"
},
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/markdown",
"value": "1. Run a loopback HTTP server that answers with a 65,255-byte gzip stream decompressing to 64 MiB and `Content-Encoding: gzip`. `Hex.HTTP.request(:get, url, %{}, nil)` returns a 67,108,864-byte body; peak RSS was 220 MiB, against 91 MiB for an uncompressed control.\n2. Serve a 17 MiB file as a package tarball. `Hex.Repo.get_tarball/3` returns all of it, and only the following unpack fails with `{:tarball, :too_big}`.\n3. Serve a 131,574-byte docs tarball containing a 129 MiB file and set `HEX_MIRROR_URL` to the server. `mix hex.docs fetch probe 1.0.0` writes the 129 MiB file and reports success."
}
],
"value": "* Run a loopback HTTP server that answers with a 65,255-byte gzip stream decompressing to 64 MiB and Content-Encoding: gzip. Hex.HTTP.request(:get, url, %{}, nil) returns a 67,108,864-byte body; peak RSS was 220 MiB, against 91 MiB for an uncompressed control.\n* Serve a 17 MiB file as a package tarball. Hex.Repo.get_tarball/3 returns all of it, and only the following unpack fails with {:tarball, :too_big}.\n* Serve a 131,574-byte docs tarball containing a 129 MiB file and set HEX_MIRROR_URL to the server. mix hex.docs fetch probe 1.0.0 writes the 129 MiB file and reports success."
}
],
"x_technicalAnalysis": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ccode\u003eHex.HTTP.request/5\u003c/code\u003e calls \u003ccode\u003e:httpc.request/5\u003c/code\u003e with \u003ccode\u003ebody_format: :binary\u003c/code\u003e, so the whole body is held in memory, and then calls \u003ccode\u003e:zlib.gunzip/1\u003c/code\u003e when the \u003ccode\u003econtent-encoding\u003c/code\u003e header contains \u003ccode\u003egzip\u003c/code\u003e. Hex doesn\u0027t send \u003ccode\u003eAccept-Encoding\u003c/code\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhen \u003ccode\u003emirror_url\u003c/code\u003e is set, \u003ccode\u003eHex.Repo\u003c/code\u003e sends registry, tarball and docs requests to the mirror and marks it untrusted, so no credentials are sent to it.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHex 2.5.1: \u003ccode\u003eHex.SCM.fetch/3\u003c/code\u003e writes the body returned by \u003ccode\u003eHex.Repo.get_tarball/3\u003c/code\u003e to the cache. \u003ccode\u003eHex.SCM.update/1\u003c/code\u003e deletes \u003ccode\u003edeps/\u0026lt;app\u0026gt;\u003c/code\u003e, unpacks the tarball into it with \u003ccode\u003eHex.Tar.unpack!/2\u003c/code\u003e and compares the inner and outer checksums afterwards. Development branch: \u003ccode\u003eHex.Repo.get_tarball_to_file/4\u003c/code\u003e streams the tarball to a temporary file without counting bytes; the file is renamed into the cache and unpacked into a staging directory before the checksums are compared.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ccode\u003eMix.Tasks.Hex.Docs\u003c/code\u003e writes the body returned by \u003ccode\u003eHex.Repo.get_docs/3\u003c/code\u003e to disk and calls \u003ccode\u003e:mix_hex_erl_tar.extract/2\u003c/code\u003e with \u003ccode\u003e[:compressed, cwd: ...]\u003c/code\u003e and no \u003ccode\u003emax_size\u003c/code\u003e, while \u003ccode\u003emix_hex_tarball:unpack_docs/3\u003c/code\u003e enforces a 16 MiB compressed and 128 MiB decompressed limit.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"
},
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/markdown",
"value": "1. `Hex.HTTP.request/5` calls `:httpc.request/5` with `body_format: :binary`, so the whole body is held in memory, and then calls `:zlib.gunzip/1` when the `content-encoding` header contains `gzip`. Hex doesn\u0027t send `Accept-Encoding`.\n2. When `mirror_url` is set, `Hex.Repo` sends registry, tarball and docs requests to the mirror and marks it untrusted, so no credentials are sent to it.\n3. Hex 2.5.1: `Hex.SCM.fetch/3` writes the body returned by `Hex.Repo.get_tarball/3` to the cache. `Hex.SCM.update/1` deletes `deps/\u003capp\u003e`, unpacks the tarball into it with `Hex.Tar.unpack!/2` and compares the inner and outer checksums afterwards. Development branch: `Hex.Repo.get_tarball_to_file/4` streams the tarball to a temporary file without counting bytes; the file is renamed into the cache and unpacked into a staging directory before the checksums are compared.\n4. `Mix.Tasks.Hex.Docs` writes the body returned by `Hex.Repo.get_docs/3` to disk and calls `:mix_hex_erl_tar.extract/2` with `[:compressed, cwd: ...]` and no `max_size`, while `mix_hex_tarball:unpack_docs/3` enforces a 16 MiB compressed and 128 MiB decompressed limit."
}
],
"value": "* Hex.HTTP.request/5 calls :httpc.request/5 with body_format: :binary, so the whole body is held in memory, and then calls :zlib.gunzip/1 when the content-encoding header contains gzip. Hex doesn\u0027t send Accept-Encoding.\n* When mirror_url is set, Hex.Repo sends registry, tarball and docs requests to the mirror and marks it untrusted, so no credentials are sent to it.\n* Hex 2.5.1: Hex.SCM.fetch/3 writes the body returned by Hex.Repo.get_tarball/3 to the cache. Hex.SCM.update/1 deletes deps/\u003capp\u003e, unpacks the tarball into it with Hex.Tar.unpack!/2 and compares the inner and outer checksums afterwards. Development branch: Hex.Repo.get_tarball_to_file/4 streams the tarball to a temporary file without counting bytes; the file is renamed into the cache and unpacked into a staging directory before the checksums are compared.\n* Mix.Tasks.Hex.Docs writes the body returned by Hex.Repo.get_docs/3 to disk and calls :mix_hex_erl_tar.extract/2 with [:compressed, cwd: ...] and no max_size, while mix_hex_tarball:unpack_docs/3 enforces a 16 MiB compressed and 128 MiB decompressed limit."
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"assignerShortName": "EEF",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-96618",
"datePublished": "2026-10-12T15:29:19.117Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-10-10T13:00:02.352Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-16T17:33:51.114Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-96609 (GCVE-0-2026-96609)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-23 14:07 – Updated: 2026-09-23 15:22
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Summary
Robur Albatross 1.0.0 through 2.x before 2.7.2 does not limit use of the ring buffer, leading to an albatross-console loop with no recognized termination condition. This is only exploitable by users who can send console subscription commands to unikernels that produce sufficient log output to fill the ring buffer (1024 lines). It is not exploitable by unauthorized clients.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-09-23 15:21 UTC
CWE
- CWE-770 - Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Assigner
mitre
CNA
References
2 references
Impacted products
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-96609",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-23T15:21:49.993447Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-23T15:22:02.527Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageURL": "pkg:opam/albatross",
"product": "Albatross",
"repo": "https://github.com/robur-coop/albatross",
"vendor": "Robur",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "2.7.2",
"status": "affected",
"version": "1.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Robur Albatross 1.0.0 through 2.x before 2.7.2 does not limit use of the ring buffer, leading to an albatross-console loop with no recognized termination condition. This is only exploitable by users who can send console subscription commands to unikernels that produce sufficient log output to fill the ring buffer (1024 lines). It is not exploitable by unauthorized clients."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 7.1,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "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",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-23T14:07:16.336Z",
"orgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
"shortName": "mitre"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://github.com/robur-coop/albatross/pull/273"
},
{
"url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/OSEC-2026-09"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "Apply the patch, or upgrade to version that includes the patch (2.7.2+)."
}
],
"value": "Apply the patch, or upgrade to version that includes the patch (2.7.2+)."
}
],
"x_generator": {
"engine": "CVE-Request-form 0.0.1"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
"assignerShortName": "mitre",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-96609",
"datePublished": "2026-09-23T14:07:16.336Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-23T14:07:15.796Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-23T15:22:02.527Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-96405 (GCVE-0-2026-96405)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-10-21 08:57 – Updated: 2026-10-29 19:07
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Aggregate DNS name chained pointer decompression work leads to degradation of service.
Summary
NLnet Labs Unbound up to and including version 1.26.1 limits compression-pointer traversal for each individual domain-name operation but has no aggregate inbound decompression-work budget. Many chained compression pointers in a message results in a lot of CPU usage following them. A malicious actor with recursive-query access and control of an ordinarily delegated authority that serves specially crafted replies can exploit the vulnerability and degrade Unbound's general performance.
Severity
5.3 (Medium)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-10-29 19:07 UTC
CWE
- CWE-770 - Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Assigner
NLnet Labs
CNA
References
1 reference
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/downloads/unbound/CVE-20… | vendor-advisory |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NLnet Labs | Unbound |
Affected:
0 , < 1.26.2
(semver)
|
Date Public
2026-10-21 00:00
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-96405",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-10-29T19:07:13.696474Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-29T19:07:33.197Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "Unbound",
"vendor": "NLnet Labs",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "1.26.2",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Yuheng Zhang (Tsinghua University \u0026 Jingxian Technology Co., Ltd.)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Jianjun Chen (Tsinghua University)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Zihan Wang (Z.AI Co., Ltd.)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Kaiwen Shen (CloudItera)"
}
],
"datePublic": "2026-10-21T00:00:00.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "NLnet Labs Unbound up to and including version 1.26.1 limits compression-pointer traversal for each individual domain-name operation but has no aggregate inbound decompression-work budget. Many chained compression pointers in a message results in a lot of CPU usage following them. A malicious actor with recursive-query access and control of an ordinarily delegated authority that serves specially crafted replies can exploit the vulnerability and degrade Unbound\u0027s general performance."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-21T08:57:26.986Z",
"orgId": "206fc3a0-e175-490b-9eaa-a5738056c9f6",
"shortName": "NLnet Labs"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/downloads/unbound/CVE-2026-96405.txt"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "This issue is fixed starting with version 1.26.2"
}
],
"timeline": [
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-07-16T00:00:00.000Z",
"value": "Issue reported by Yuheng Zhang"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-07-17T00:00:00.000Z",
"value": "NLnet Labs shares patch"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-07-17T00:00:00.000Z",
"value": "Yuheng Zhang requests changes"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-07-21T00:00:00.000Z",
"value": "NLnet Labs shares new patch"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-09-30T00:00:00.000Z",
"value": "Yuheng Zhang verifies patch"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2026-09-16T00:00:00.000Z",
"value": "Coordinated fixes released with version 1.26.2"
}
],
"title": "Aggregate DNS name chained pointer decompression work leads to degradation of service.",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "cvelib 1.8.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "206fc3a0-e175-490b-9eaa-a5738056c9f6",
"assignerShortName": "NLnet Labs",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-96405",
"datePublished": "2026-10-21T08:57:26.986Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-10-14T09:16:14.093Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-29T19:07:33.197Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-96377 (GCVE-0-2026-96377)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-10-22 01:21 – Updated: 2026-11-03 22:23
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Combined image style - Moderately critical - Improper access control - SA-CONTRIB-2026-188
Summary
Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Drupal Combined image style allows Excessive Allocation. This issue affects Combined image style versions: from 0.0.0 to 1.0.7.
Severity
5.3 (Medium)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-10-22 14:52 UTC
CWE
- CWE-770 - Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Assigner
drupal
CNA
References
1 reference
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drupal | Combined image style |
Affected:
0.0.0 , < 1.0.7
(semver)
|
Date Public
2026-09-23 17:21
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "LOW",
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-96377",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-10-22T14:52:58.365963Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-11-03T22:23:38.711Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://www.drupal.org/project/combined_image_style",
"product": "Combined image style",
"repo": "https://git.drupalcode.org/project/combined_image_style",
"vendor": "Drupal",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "1.0.7",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Sven Decabooter (svendecabooter)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Sven Decabooter (svendecabooter)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Swan Kalata (akalata)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "Swan Kalata (akalata)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "Bram Driesen (bramdriesen)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "Greg Knaddison (greggles)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "Juraj Nemec (poker10)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "Jess (xjm)"
}
],
"datePublic": "2026-09-23T17:21:51.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Drupal Combined image style allows Excessive Allocation. This issue affects Combined image style versions: from 0.0.0 to 1.0.7."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-130",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-130 Excessive Allocation"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-22T01:21:20.134Z",
"orgId": "2c85b837-eb8b-40ed-9d74-228c62987387",
"shortName": "drupal"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://www.drupal.org/sa-contrib-2026-188"
}
],
"title": "Combined image style - Moderately critical - Improper access control - SA-CONTRIB-2026-188"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "2c85b837-eb8b-40ed-9d74-228c62987387",
"assignerShortName": "drupal",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-96377",
"datePublished": "2026-10-22T01:21:20.134Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-23T01:32:48.996Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-11-03T22:23:38.711Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-96365 (GCVE-0-2026-96365)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-10-22 01:21 – Updated: 2026-10-22 14:58
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Webform - Less critical - Denial of service - SA-CONTRIB-2026-170
Summary
Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Drupal Webform allows Excessive Allocation. This issue affects Webform versions: from 0.0.0 to 6.2.12, from 6.3.0 to 6.3.1.
Severity
7.5 (High)
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-10-22 14:58 UTC
CWE
- CWE-770 - Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Assigner
drupal
CNA
References
1 reference
Impacted products
Date Public
2026-09-23 16:26
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 7.5,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-96365",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-10-22T14:58:50.334124Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-22T14:58:52.996Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://www.drupal.org/project/webform",
"product": "Webform",
"repo": "https://git.drupalcode.org/project/webform",
"vendor": "Drupal",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "6.2.12",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "6.3.1",
"status": "affected",
"version": "6.3.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Majdi Alomari (majdi)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Jacob Rockowitz (jrockowitz)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Liam Morland (liam morland)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "Swan Kalata (akalata)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "Bram Driesen (bramdriesen)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "cilefen (cilefen)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "Damien McKenna (damienmckenna)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "Greg Knaddison (greggles)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "Ivo Van Geertruyen (mr.baileys)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "Jess (xjm)"
}
],
"datePublic": "2026-09-23T16:26:17.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Drupal Webform allows Excessive Allocation. This issue affects Webform versions: from 0.0.0 to 6.2.12, from 6.3.0 to 6.3.1."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-130",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-130 Excessive Allocation"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-22T01:21:37.236Z",
"orgId": "2c85b837-eb8b-40ed-9d74-228c62987387",
"shortName": "drupal"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://www.drupal.org/sa-contrib-2026-170"
}
],
"title": "Webform - Less critical - Denial of service - SA-CONTRIB-2026-170"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "2c85b837-eb8b-40ed-9d74-228c62987387",
"assignerShortName": "drupal",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-96365",
"datePublished": "2026-10-22T01:21:37.236Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-23T01:32:48.995Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-22T14:58:52.996Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-96300 (GCVE-0-2026-96300)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-10-13 19:01 – Updated: 2026-10-31 18:11
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
RPC Endpoint Mapper Service Denial of Service Vulnerability
Summary
Uncontrolled resource consumption in RPC Endpoint Mapper Service allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service over a network.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-10-13 19:45 UTC
CWE
- CWE-770 - Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Assigner
microsoft
CNA
References
1 reference
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerabi… | vendor-advisorypatch |
Impacted products
21 products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microsoft | Windows 10 Version 1607 |
Affected:
10.0.14393.0 , < 10.0.14393.9612
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows 10 Version 1809 |
Affected:
10.0.17763.0 , < 10.0.17763.9376
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows 10 Version 21H2 |
Affected:
10.0.19044.0 , < 10.0.19044.7807
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows 10 Version 22H2 |
Affected:
10.0.19045.0 , < 10.0.19045.7807
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows 11 version 23H2 |
Affected:
10.0.22631.0 , < 10.0.22631.7652
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows 11 Version 23H2 |
Affected:
10.0.22631.0 , < 10.0.22631.7652
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows 11 Version 24H2 |
Affected:
10.0.26100.0 , < 10.0.26100.9711
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows 11 Version 25H2 |
Affected:
10.0.26200.0 , < 10.0.26200.9711
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows 11 version 26H1 |
Affected:
10.0.28000.0 , < 10.0.28000.3231
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows 11 Version 26H2 |
Affected:
10.0.26300.0 , < 10.0.26300.9711
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows Server 2012 |
Affected:
6.2.9200.0 , < 6.2.9200.26434
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows Server 2012 (Server Core installation) |
Affected:
6.2.9200.0 , < 6.2.9200.26434
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows Server 2012 R2 |
Affected:
6.3.9600.0 , < 6.3.9600.23470
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows Server 2012 R2 (Server Core installation) |
Affected:
6.3.9600.0 , < 6.3.9600.23470
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows Server 2016 |
Affected:
10.0.14393.0 , < 10.0.14393.9612
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows Server 2016 (Server Core installation) |
Affected:
10.0.14393.0 , < 10.0.14393.9612
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows Server 2019 |
Affected:
10.0.17763.0 , < 10.0.17763.9376
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows Server 2019 (Server Core installation) |
Affected:
10.0.17763.0 , < 10.0.17763.9376
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows Server 2022 |
Affected:
10.0.20348.0 , < 10.0.20348.5761
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows Server 2025 |
Affected:
10.0.26100.0 , < 10.0.26100.33650
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Windows Server 2025 (Server Core installation) |
Affected:
10.0.26100.0 , < 10.0.26100.33650
(custom)
|
Date Public
2026-10-13 14:00
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-96300",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-10-13T19:45:11.463553Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-13T19:52:08.290Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"platforms": [
"32-bit Systems",
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows 10 Version 1607",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.14393.9612",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.14393.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"32-bit Systems",
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows 10 Version 1809",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.17763.9376",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.17763.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"32-bit Systems",
"ARM64-based Systems",
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows 10 Version 21H2",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.19044.7807",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.19044.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"32-bit Systems",
"ARM64-based Systems",
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows 10 Version 22H2",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.19045.7807",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.19045.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"ARM64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows 11 version 23H2",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.22631.7652",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.22631.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows 11 Version 23H2",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.22631.7652",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.22631.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"ARM64-based Systems",
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows 11 Version 24H2",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.26100.9711",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.26100.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"ARM64-based Systems",
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows 11 Version 25H2",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.26200.9711",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.26200.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"ARM64-based Systems",
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows 11 version 26H1",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.28000.3231",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.28000.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"ARM64-based Systems",
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows 11 Version 26H2",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.26300.9711",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.26300.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows Server 2012",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "6.2.9200.26434",
"status": "affected",
"version": "6.2.9200.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows Server 2012 (Server Core installation)",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "6.2.9200.26434",
"status": "affected",
"version": "6.2.9200.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows Server 2012 R2",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "6.3.9600.23470",
"status": "affected",
"version": "6.3.9600.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows Server 2012 R2 (Server Core installation)",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "6.3.9600.23470",
"status": "affected",
"version": "6.3.9600.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows Server 2016",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.14393.9612",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.14393.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows Server 2016 (Server Core installation)",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.14393.9612",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.14393.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows Server 2019",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.17763.9376",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.17763.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows Server 2019 (Server Core installation)",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.17763.9376",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.17763.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows Server 2022",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.20348.5761",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.20348.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows Server 2025",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.26100.33650",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.26100.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"platforms": [
"x64-based Systems"
],
"product": "Windows Server 2025 (Server Core installation)",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.26100.33650",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0.26100.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
}
],
"cpeApplicability": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:windows_11_version_26h2_for_arm64-based_systems:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.26300.9711",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.26300.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2012:*:*:*:*:*:*:x64:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "6.2.9200.26434",
"versionStartIncluding": "6.2.9200.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_10_1607:*:*:*:*:*:*:x64:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.14393.9612",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.14393.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2016:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.14393.9612",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.14393.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2019:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.17763.9376",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.17763.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_10_21H2:*:*:*:*:*:*:x64:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.19044.7807",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.19044.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_10_22H2:*:*:*:*:*:*:arm64:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.19045.7807",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.19045.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2022:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.20348.5761",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.20348.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_11_23H2:*:*:*:*:*:*:arm64:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.22631.7652",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.22631.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_11_23H2:*:*:*:*:*:*:x64:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.22631.7652",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.22631.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_11_24H2:*:*:*:*:*:*:arm64:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.26100.9711",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.26100.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2025:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.26100.33650",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.26100.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_11_26H1:*:*:*:*:*:*:x64:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.28000.3231",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.28000.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2012:*:*:*:*:*:*:x64:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "6.2.9200.26434",
"versionStartIncluding": "6.2.9200.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2012_R2:*:*:*:*:*:*:x64:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "6.3.9600.23470",
"versionStartIncluding": "6.3.9600.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2012_R2:*:*:*:*:*:*:x64:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "6.3.9600.23470",
"versionStartIncluding": "6.3.9600.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2016:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.14393.9612",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.14393.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_10_1809:*:*:*:*:*:*:x86:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.17763.9376",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.17763.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2019:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.17763.9376",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.17763.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_11_25H2:*:*:*:*:*:*:arm64:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.26200.9711",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.26200.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2025:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.26100.33650",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0.26100.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"datePublic": "2026-10-13T14:00:00.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en-US",
"value": "Uncontrolled resource consumption in RPC Endpoint Mapper Service allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service over a network."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"baseScore": 5.9,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H/E:U/RL:O/RC:C",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en-US",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en-US",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-31T18:11:14.012Z",
"orgId": "f38d906d-7342-40ea-92c1-6c4a2c6478c8",
"shortName": "microsoft"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "RPC Endpoint Mapper Service Denial of Service Vulnerability",
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory",
"patch"
],
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-96300"
}
],
"title": "RPC Endpoint Mapper Service Denial of Service Vulnerability"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "f38d906d-7342-40ea-92c1-6c4a2c6478c8",
"assignerShortName": "microsoft",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-96300",
"datePublished": "2026-10-13T19:01:17.588Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-22T22:31:49.521Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-31T18:11:14.012Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-96299 (GCVE-0-2026-96299)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-10-13 15:27 – Updated: 2026-10-13 16:31
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Missing Authorization Check on Internal Aggregation Stage in MongoDB Server mongos Leads to Denial of Service
Summary
A security issue was discovered in MongoDB mongos (the sharded cluster router) where an authenticated user with readWrite privileges could crash the mongos process by crafting a specially formed aggregation pipeline. The issue leverages an internal aggregation stage that lacks proper authorization checks despite being intended for internal use, allowing a subsequent stage to be forced to execute on the router under conditions it was not designed to handle. This results in an unhandled fatal error that causes the mongos process to immediately abort, resulting in denial of service for all clients routed through the affected mongos instance.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-10-13 15:46 UTC
CWE
- CWE-617 - Reachable Assertion
Assigner
mongodb
CNA
References
1 reference
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MongoDB | MongoDB Server |
Affected:
8.3.0 , < 8.3.13
(semver)
Affected: 9.0 , < 9.0.4 (semver) |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-96299",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-10-13T15:46:45.492569Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-13T16:20:06.272Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "MongoDB Server",
"vendor": "MongoDB",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "8.3.13",
"status": "affected",
"version": "8.3.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "9.0.4",
"status": "affected",
"version": "9.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "A security issue was discovered in MongoDB mongos (the sharded cluster router) where an authenticated user with readWrite privileges could crash the mongos process by crafting a specially formed aggregation pipeline. The issue leverages an internal aggregation stage that lacks proper authorization checks despite being intended for internal use, allowing a subsequent stage to be forced to execute on the router under conditions it was not designed to handle. This results in an unhandled fatal error that causes the mongos process to immediately abort, resulting in denial of service for all clients routed through the affected mongos instance."
}
],
"value": "A security issue was discovered in MongoDB mongos (the sharded cluster router) where an authenticated user with readWrite privileges could crash the mongos process by crafting a specially formed aggregation pipeline. The issue leverages an internal aggregation stage that lacks proper authorization checks despite being intended for internal use, allowing a subsequent stage to be forced to execute on the router under conditions it was not designed to handle. This results in an unhandled fatal error that causes the mongos process to immediately abort, resulting in denial of service for all clients routed through the affected mongos instance."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 7.1,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "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",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
},
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 6.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-617",
"description": "CWE-617: Reachable Assertion",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-13T16:31:19.871Z",
"orgId": "a39b4221-9bd0-4244-95fc-f3e2e07f1deb",
"shortName": "mongodb"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-130431"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "Missing Authorization Check on Internal Aggregation Stage in MongoDB Server mongos Leads to Denial of Service",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 1.0.5"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a39b4221-9bd0-4244-95fc-f3e2e07f1deb",
"assignerShortName": "mongodb",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-96299",
"datePublished": "2026-10-13T15:27:57.250Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-22T22:29:05.501Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-13T16:31:19.871Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-96288 (GCVE-0-2026-96288)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-10-02 11:18 – Updated: 2026-10-02 16:10
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Apache Thrift: Erlang generated struct reads have no recursion-depth guard (unbounded memory)
Summary
Uncontrolled Recursion, Allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability in Apache Thrift Erlang bindings.
This issue affects Apache Thrift: before 0.25.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 0.25.0, which fixes the issue.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-10-02 16:09 UTC
Assigner
apache
CNA
References
2 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://lists.apache.org/thread/33otcgbqd27wf6qq8… | vendor-advisory |
| https://lists.apache.org/thread/vxnk7cmdtoqjn97b8… | vendor-advisory |
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apache Software Foundation | Apache Thrift |
Affected:
0 , < 0.25.0
(semver)
|
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-96288",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-10-02T16:09:47.073371Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-02T16:10:05.301Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "erlang bindings",
"product": "Apache Thrift",
"vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "0.25.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eUncontrolled Recursion, Allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability in Apache Thrift Erlang bindings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis issue affects Apache Thrift: before 0.25.0.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 0.25.0, which fixes the issue.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "Uncontrolled Recursion, Allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability in Apache Thrift Erlang bindings.\n\n\n\nThis issue affects Apache Thrift: before 0.25.0.\n\n\n\nUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 0.25.0, which fixes the issue."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"text": "important"
},
"type": "Textual description of severity"
},
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
},
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 8.2,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-674",
"description": "CWE-674 Uncontrolled Recursion",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770 Allocation of resources without limits or throttling",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-02T11:18:37.005Z",
"orgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
"shortName": "apache"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/33otcgbqd27wf6qq810q56znzbomnhg1"
},
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/vxnk7cmdtoqjn97b8szlqym1mxx0xtzb"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "INTERNAL"
},
"title": "Apache Thrift: Erlang generated struct reads have no recursion-depth guard (unbounded memory)",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 1.0.3"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
"assignerShortName": "apache",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-96288",
"datePublished": "2026-10-02T11:18:37.005Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-22T21:18:51.169Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-02T16:10:05.301Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
CVE-2026-96236 (GCVE-0-2026-96236)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-10-13 19:00 – Updated: 2026-10-31 18:06
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability
Summary
Allocation of resources without limits or throttling in ASP.NET Core allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service over a network.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: yes
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-10-13 19:46 UTC
CWE
- CWE-770 - Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Assigner
microsoft
CNA
References
1 reference
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerabi… | vendor-advisorypatch |
Impacted products
6 products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microsoft | ASP.NET Core 10.0 |
Affected:
10.0 , < 10.0.13
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | ASP.NET Core 11.0 |
Affected:
11.0 , < 11.0.0-rc.2
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | ASP.NET Core 8.0 |
Affected:
8.0 , < 8.0.32
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | ASP.NET Core 9.0 |
Affected:
9.0 , < 9.0.21
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Microsoft Visual Studio 2022 version 17.14 |
Affected:
17.14.0 , < 17.14.42
(custom)
|
|
| Microsoft | Microsoft Visual Studio 2026 version 18.10 |
Affected:
18.10.0 , < 18.10.4
(custom)
|
Date Public
2026-10-13 14:00
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-96236",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-10-13T19:46:25.390436Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-13T19:52:10.368Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "ASP.NET Core 10.0",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "10.0.13",
"status": "affected",
"version": "10.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"product": "ASP.NET Core 11.0",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "11.0.0-rc.2",
"status": "affected",
"version": "11.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"product": "ASP.NET Core 8.0",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "8.0.32",
"status": "affected",
"version": "8.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"product": "ASP.NET Core 9.0",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "9.0.21",
"status": "affected",
"version": "9.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"product": "Microsoft Visual Studio 2022 version 17.14",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "17.14.42",
"status": "affected",
"version": "17.14.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
},
{
"product": "Microsoft Visual Studio 2026 version 18.10",
"vendor": "Microsoft",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "18.10.4",
"status": "affected",
"version": "18.10.0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
}
],
"cpeApplicability": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:asp.net_core:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "11.0.0-rc.2",
"versionStartIncluding": "11.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:asp.net_core:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "10.0.13",
"versionStartIncluding": "10.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:asp.net_core:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "8.0.32",
"versionStartIncluding": "8.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:asp.net_core:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "9.0.21",
"versionStartIncluding": "9.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:microsoft_visual_studio_2026_version_18.10:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "18.10.4",
"versionStartIncluding": "18.10.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:visual_studio_2022:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "17.14.42",
"versionStartIncluding": "17.14.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"datePublic": "2026-10-13T14:00:00.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en-US",
"value": "Allocation of resources without limits or throttling in ASP.NET Core allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service over a network."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"baseScore": 7.5,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H/E:U/RL:O/RC:C",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en-US",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-770",
"description": "CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling",
"lang": "en-US",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-31T18:06:51.044Z",
"orgId": "f38d906d-7342-40ea-92c1-6c4a2c6478c8",
"shortName": "microsoft"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability",
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory",
"patch"
],
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-96236"
}
],
"title": "ASP.NET Core Denial of Service Vulnerability"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "f38d906d-7342-40ea-92c1-6c4a2c6478c8",
"assignerShortName": "microsoft",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-96236",
"datePublished": "2026-10-13T19:00:32.033Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-22T19:05:22.813Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-10-31T18:06:51.044Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
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.