Kingdom: Input Validation and Representation

Input validation and representation problems ares caused by metacharacters, alternate encodings and numeric representations. Security problems result from trusting input. The issues include: "Buffer Overflows," "Cross-Site Scripting" attacks, "SQL Injection," and many others.

191 items found
Weaknesses
Abstract
An attacker will be able to create a file on the system with arbitrary contents.
Explanation
An attacker will be able to create a file in the server's file system with arbitrary contents. The file created could then be used later by the attacker in order to perform additional attacks, dependent on the ability to control the contents injected into the file.

If the attacker is capable of controlling the contents of the file and the file is served by a web server, then he will be able to inject a malicious web shell, which can let him execute arbitrary commands on the server remotely.

If the attacker may create the file with the contents from a different file in the file system, he will be able to read arbitrary files on the file system that can be accessed using the permissions of the vulnerable application.
References
[1] Exploit PHP’s mail() to get remote code execution
desc.dataflow.php.dangerous_file_injection
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them thereby creating a resource exhaustion condition.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which the current work process will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the work process indefinitely.


...
CALL FUNCTION 'ENQUE_SLEEP'
EXPORTING
SECONDS = usrInput.
...
desc.dataflow.abap.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume, or the duration for which they will use them.

By default, ASP.NET limits the size of client provided dictionaries such as HttpRequest.Files, HttpRequest.Form, HttpRequest.Cookies, HttpRequest.QueryString, HttpRequest.Headers, HttpRequest.ServerVariables to 1000, and the size can be increased or decreased using the aspnet:MaxHttpCollectionKeys setting in the configuration file. However, increasing the size to a higher value increases the probability for a DoS attack.

Example 1: In the following example, aspnet:MaxHttpCollectionKeys is set to 2147483647.

...
<appSettings>
<add key="aspnet:MaxHttpCollectionKeys" value="2147483647" />
</appSettings>
...
References
[1] ASP.NET appSettings Element Microsoft
desc.configuration.dotnet.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which the current process will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the process indefinitely.


unsigned int usrSleepTime = uatoi(usrInput);
sleep(usrSleepTime);
desc.dataflow.cpp.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which a thread will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the thread indefinitely. With a small number of requests, the attacker may deplete the application's thread pool.


Sleep(url.duration);
desc.dataflow.cfml.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which a Future function will be executed. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the Future function indefinitely.


final duration = Platform.environment['DURATION'];
Future.delayed(Duration(seconds: int.parse(duration!)), () => ...);
desc.dataflow.dart.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker can cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers might be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs enable the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: Setting a service timeout with untrusted data can leave the service unresponsive if an attacker sets a large value.


func test(r *http.Request) {
...
i, _ := strconv.Atoi(r.FormValue("TIME"))
runtime.KeepAlive(i)
...
}
desc.dataflow.golang.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which a thread will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the thread indefinitely. With a small number of requests, the attacker may deplete the application's thread pool.


int usrSleepTime = Integer.parseInt(usrInput);
Thread.sleep(usrSleepTime);
Example 2: The following code reads a String from a zip file. Because it uses the readLine() method, it will read an unbounded amount of input. An attacker may take advantage of this code to cause an OutOfMemoryException or to consume a large amount of memory so that the program spends more time performing garbage collection or runs out of memory during some subsequent operation.


InputStream zipInput = zipFile.getInputStream(zipEntry);
Reader zipReader = new InputStreamReader(zipInput);
BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(zipReader);
String line = br.readLine();
References
[1] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the size of the file system to be used. By specifying a large number, an attacker may deplete file system resources.


var fsync = requestFileSystemSync(0, userInput);
Example 2: The following code writes to a file. Because the file may be continuously written and rewritten until it is deemed closed by the user agent, disk quota, IO bandwidth, and processes that may require analyzing the content of the file are impacted.


function oninit(fs) {
fs.root.getFile('applog.txt', {create: false}, function(fileEntry) {
fileEntry.createWriter(function(fileWriter) {
fileWriter.seek(fileWriter.length);
var bb = new BlobBuilder();
bb.append('Appending to a file');
fileWriter.write(bb.getBlob('text/plain'));
}, errorHandler);
}, errorHandler);
}

window.requestFileSystem(window.TEMPORARY, 1024*1024, oninit, errorHandler);
desc.dataflow.javascript.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.
desc.dataflow.php.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which the system should delay further processing. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the system indefinitely.


procedure go_sleep (
usrSleepTime in NUMBER)
is
dbms_lock.sleep(usrSleepTime);
desc.dataflow.sql.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers can deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, however most flooding attacks can be defused at the network layer. More problematic are defects that enable an attacker to overload the application with a small number of requests. These defects enable the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the duration of a connection timeout for the connect function. By specifying a large number, an attacker can tie up the connect function indefinitely.


...
insecure_config_ssl_connection_timeout = {
'user': username,
'password': retrievedPassword,
'host': databaseHost,
'port': "3306",
'connection_timeout': connection_timeout
}

mysql.connector.connect(**insecure_config_ssl_connection_timeout)
...
desc.dataflow.python.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which a thread will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the thread indefinitely. With a small number of requests, the attacker may deplete the application's thread pool.


Kernel.sleep(user_input)
Example 2: The following code reads a String from a file. Because it uses the readline() method without specifying a limit, it will read an unbounded amount of input. An attacker may take advantage of this code to cause the process to hang whilst consuming more and more memory, until it may potentially run out of memory entirely.


fd = File.new(myFile)
line = fd.readline
desc.dataflow.ruby.denial_of_service
Abstract
Allowing user input to control format parameters could enable an attacker to cause exceptions to be thrown or leak information.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to modify the format string argument such that an exception is thrown. If this exception is left uncaught, it may crash the application. Alternatively, if sensitive information is used within the other arguments, attackers may change the format string to reveal this information.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the format string argument to Formatter.format().


...
Formatter formatter = new Formatter(Locale.US);
String format = "The customer: %s %s has the balance %4$." + userInput + "f";
formatter.format(format, firstName, lastName, accountNo, balance);
...


The intention of this program is to let the user specify the decimal points to which it shows the balance. In reality though, there are no restrictions on this. If the user can specify anything, it may cause an exception such as java.util.MissingFormatArgumentException to be thrown, and since this is not within a try block, could lead to application failure.
Even more critical within this example, if an attacker can specify the user input "2f %3$s %4$.2", the format string would be "The customer: %s %s has the balance %4$.2f %3$s %4$.2". This would then lead to the sensitive accountNo to be included within the resulting string.
References
[1] IDS06-J. Exclude unsanitized user input from format strings CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_format_string
Abstract
The program calls a method that parses doubles and can cause the thread to hang.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations ofjava.lang.Double.parseDouble() and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when parsing any number in the range [2^(-1022) - 2^(-1075) : 2^(-1022) - 2^(-1076)]. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.

Example 1: The following code uses a vulnerable method.

Double d = Double.parseDouble(request.getParameter("d"));


An attacker could send requests where the parameter d is a value in the range, such as "0.0222507385850720119e-00306", to cause the program to hang while processing the request.

This vulnerability exists for Java version 6 Update 23 and earlier versions. It is not present for Java version 6 Update 24 and later.
References
[1] Rick Regan Java Hangs When Converting 2.2250738585072012e-308
[2] Oracle Security Alert for CVE-2010-4476
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [20] CWE ID 400
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [23] CWE ID 400
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [23] CWE ID 400
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_parse_double
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Microsoft Best Practices for Regular Expressions in the .NET Framework
[2] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.dotnet.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.dart.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is repeated. Additionally, attackers can exploit any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.golang.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.javascript.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. Attackers can use this defect to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.kotlin.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1: If the following regular expressions are used in the identified vulnerable code a denial of service could occur:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+


Example of problematic code relying on a flawed regular expressions:


NSString *regex = @"^(e+)+$";
NSPredicate *pred = [NSPRedicate predicateWithFormat:@"SELF MATCHES %@", regex];
if ([pred evaluateWithObject:mystring]) {
//do something
}


Most regular expression parsers build Nondeterministic Finite Automaton (NFA) structures when evaluating regular expressions. The NFA tries all possible matches until a complete match is found. Given the previous example, if the attacker supplies the match string "eeeeZ" then there are 16 internal evaluations that the regex parser must go through to identify a match. If the attacker provides 16 "e"s ("eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ") as the match string then the regex parser must go through 65536 (2^16) evaluations. The attacker may easily consume computing resources by increasing the number of consecutive match characters. There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.objc.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.php.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations which are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.python.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to over-consume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating repeating and alternating overlapping of nested and repeated regex groups. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.ruby.denial_of_service_reqular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.scala.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.

Example 1: If the following regular expressions are used in the identified vulnerable code a denial of service could occur:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+


Example of problematic code relying on a flawed regular expressions:


let regex : String = "^(e+)+$"
let pred : NSPredicate = NSPRedicate(format:"SELF MATCHES \(regex)")
if (pred.evaluateWithObject(mystring)) {
//do something
}


Most regular expression parsers build Nondeterministic Finite Automaton (NFA) structures when evaluating regular expressions. The NFA tries all possible matches until a complete match is found. Given Example 1, if the attacker supplies the match string "eeeeZ" then there are 16 internal evaluations that the regex parser must go through to identify a match. If the attacker provides 16 "e"s ("eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ") as the match string then the regex parser must go through 65536 (2^16) evaluations. The attacker may easily consume computing resources by increasing the number of consecutive match characters. There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.swift.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
An attacker could manipulate wildcard routing patterns, effectively encompassing a wide spectrum of URLs or even achieving matches for all URLs, which could potentially result in the initiation of a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Explanation
The vulnerability emerges from the integration of wildcard routing patterns via the routes.Ignore method in ASP.NET applications. This method allows external input to define routing behaviors. Specifically, the use of wildcards, such as {*allaspx}, provides attackers with a foothold to manipulate routing actions. The core issue arises when the input controlling these wildcard patterns is not meticulously validated or sanitized.
Malicious actors can leverage this vulnerability to orchestrate a DoS attack. By supplying input that incorporates overly permissive wildcard patterns, an attacker can effectively prompt the routing system to ignore significant categories of URL requests. In the worst-case scenario, the attacker might provide input that encompasses all URLs, resulting in a widespread denial of service where the application becomes inaccessible.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.dotnet.denial_of_service_routing
Abstract
An attacker can input specially crafted data to modify or define a program's data structure implementation, which can result in a denial of service through stack exhaustion.
Explanation
User specified data that is directly used by a program to modify or define its data structure implementation might be susceptible to stack exhaustion. For example, if a user can create circular links in a linked data structure that is processed recursively, this can lead to infinite recursion that results in stack exhaustion.

Example 1: The following code snippet demonstrates this vulnerability using Apache Log4j2.

Marker child = MarkerManager.getMarker("child");
Marker parent = MarkerManager.getMarker("parent");

child.addParents(MarkerManager.getMarker(userInput));
parent.addParents(MarkerManager.getMarker(userInput2));

String toInfinity = child.toString();


This small program allows the user to set the parent marker of child and parent to a user-defined marker. If the user inputs the parent of child to be parent, and the parent of parent to be child, a circular link is created in the Marker data structure. When running the recursive toString method on the data structure containing the circular link, the program will throw a stack overflow exception and crash. This causes a denial of service through stack exhaustion.
References
[1] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730, CWE ID 674
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_stack_exhaustion