CVE-2026-67240 (GCVE-0-2026-67240)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2026-09-23 20:19
Modified
2026-09-24 14:24
Severity ?
VLAI Severity ?
EPSS score ?
CWE
- CWE-1333 - Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity
Summary
RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. Prior to versions 4.2.7 and 4.3.1, pattern_to_regex maps % -> .*? and _ -> ., then compiles ^...$ with only [unicode]; re:run is called with only [{capture, none}] - no explicit match_limit. A pattern like %_%_..._%X becomes ^.*?..*?.....*?.X$ with overlapping lazy quantifiers. The whole-expression cap is ?MAX_EXPRESSION_LENGTH=4096 chars / ?MAX_TOKENS=200; a LIKE string literal is one token, so ~2000 %_ pairs fit. SQL filters are accepted unconditionally at rabbit_amqp_session.erl:3264 (no feature flag). Evaluated per-message at rabbit_stream_queue.erl:1439. OTP's default 10M match_limit caps each match at ~100-200 ms (not seconds), and the re NIF yields to the scheduler. An authenticated AMQP 1.0 consumer with read+write on a stream queue can cause ~100-200 ms of CPU per delivered message via a crafted LIKE filter, multiplied across thousands of messages and parallel sessions - a substantial backtracking-driven CPU amplification. Preconditions include AMQP 1.0 with stream queues in use Attacker can attach a receiver with a filter (read permission) and publish messages with long property values (write permission). This issue is fixed in versions 4.2.7 and 4.3.1.
References
| URL | Tags | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| rabbitmq | rabbitmq-server |
Version: >= 4.2.0, < 4.2.7 Version: >= 4.3.0, < 4.3.1 |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-67240",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-24T14:24:20.497820Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-24T14:24:51.504Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"exploit"
],
"url": "https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/security/advisories/GHSA-59c5-553c-57m2"
}
],
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "rabbitmq-server",
"vendor": "rabbitmq",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 4.2.0, \u003c 4.2.7"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 4.3.0, \u003c 4.3.1"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. Prior to versions 4.2.7 and 4.3.1, pattern_to_regex maps % -\u003e .*? and _ -\u003e ., then compiles ^...$ with only [unicode]; re:run is called with only [{capture, none}] - no explicit match_limit. A pattern like %_%_..._%X becomes ^.*?..*?.....*?.X$ with overlapping lazy quantifiers. The whole-expression cap is ?MAX_EXPRESSION_LENGTH=4096 chars / ?MAX_TOKENS=200; a LIKE string literal is one token, so ~2000 %_ pairs fit. SQL filters are accepted unconditionally at rabbit_amqp_session.erl:3264 (no feature flag). Evaluated per-message at rabbit_stream_queue.erl:1439. OTP\u0027s default 10M match_limit caps each match at ~100-200 ms (not seconds), and the re NIF yields to the scheduler. An authenticated AMQP 1.0 consumer with read+write on a stream queue can cause ~100-200 ms of CPU per delivered message via a crafted LIKE filter, multiplied across thousands of messages and parallel sessions - a substantial backtracking-driven CPU amplification. Preconditions include AMQP 1.0 with stream queues in use Attacker can attach a receiver with a filter (read permission) and publish messages with long property values (write permission). This issue is fixed in versions 4.2.7 and 4.3.1."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 2.3,
"baseSeverity": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "LOW",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-1333",
"description": "CWE-1333: Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-23T20:19:22.703Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/security/advisories/GHSA-59c5-553c-57m2",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/security/advisories/GHSA-59c5-553c-57m2"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/releases/tag/v4.2.7",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/releases/tag/v4.2.7"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/releases/tag/v4.3.1",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/releases/tag/v4.3.1"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-59c5-553c-57m2",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "RabbitMQ: ReDoS via AMQP 1.0 SQL filter LIKE wildcard"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-67240",
"datePublished": "2026-09-23T20:19:22.703Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-07-28T19:50:39.438Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-24T14:24:51.504Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"vulnrichment": {
"containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2026-67240\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"poc\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"no\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"partial\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2026-09-24T14:24:20.497820Z\"}}}], \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/security/advisories/GHSA-59c5-553c-57m2\", \"tags\": [\"exploit\"]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-09-24T14:24:35.910Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"title\": \"RabbitMQ: ReDoS via AMQP 1.0 SQL filter LIKE wildcard\", \"source\": {\"advisory\": \"GHSA-59c5-553c-57m2\", \"discovery\": \"UNKNOWN\"}, \"metrics\": [{\"cvssV4_0\": {\"version\": \"4.0\", \"baseScore\": 2.3, \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"LOW\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"attackRequirements\": \"PRESENT\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"LOW\", \"subIntegrityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"vulnIntegrityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"subAvailabilityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"vulnAvailabilityImpact\": \"LOW\", \"subConfidentialityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"vulnConfidentialityImpact\": \"NONE\"}}], \"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"rabbitmq\", \"product\": \"rabbitmq-server\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"\u003e= 4.2.0, \u003c 4.2.7\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"\u003e= 4.3.0, \u003c 4.3.1\"}]}], \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/security/advisories/GHSA-59c5-553c-57m2\", \"name\": \"https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/security/advisories/GHSA-59c5-553c-57m2\", \"tags\": [\"x_refsource_CONFIRM\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/releases/tag/v4.2.7\", \"name\": \"https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/releases/tag/v4.2.7\", \"tags\": [\"x_refsource_MISC\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/releases/tag/v4.3.1\", \"name\": \"https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/releases/tag/v4.3.1\", \"tags\": [\"x_refsource_MISC\"]}], \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. Prior to versions 4.2.7 and 4.3.1, pattern_to_regex maps % -\u003e .*? and _ -\u003e ., then compiles ^...$ with only [unicode]; re:run is called with only [{capture, none}] - no explicit match_limit. A pattern like %_%_..._%X becomes ^.*?..*?.....*?.X$ with overlapping lazy quantifiers. The whole-expression cap is ?MAX_EXPRESSION_LENGTH=4096 chars / ?MAX_TOKENS=200; a LIKE string literal is one token, so ~2000 %_ pairs fit. SQL filters are accepted unconditionally at rabbit_amqp_session.erl:3264 (no feature flag). Evaluated per-message at rabbit_stream_queue.erl:1439. OTP\u0027s default 10M match_limit caps each match at ~100-200 ms (not seconds), and the re NIF yields to the scheduler. An authenticated AMQP 1.0 consumer with read+write on a stream queue can cause ~100-200 ms of CPU per delivered message via a crafted LIKE filter, multiplied across thousands of messages and parallel sessions - a substantial backtracking-driven CPU amplification. Preconditions include AMQP 1.0 with stream queues in use Attacker can attach a receiver with a filter (read permission) and publish messages with long property values (write permission). This issue is fixed in versions 4.2.7 and 4.3.1.\"}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-1333\", \"description\": \"CWE-1333: Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa\", \"shortName\": \"GitHub_M\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-09-23T20:19:22.703Z\"}}}",
"cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2026-67240\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-09-24T14:24:51.504Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2026-07-28T19:50:39.438Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa\", \"datePublished\": \"2026-09-23T20:19:22.703Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"GitHub_M\"}",
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…