EEF-CVE-2026-108525 CVE-2026-108525 GHSA-c3g7-2pg5-qvwh
HTTP/2 inbound flow control is not enforced, letting a client queue unbounded DATA in stream processes in Bandit
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Unknown · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.60%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 48.83% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
- Fix
1.14.0- Upgrade bandit to this version or later
Description
Summary
Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in the HTTP/2 implementation of mtrudel bandit allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to exhaust server memory via DATA frames sent past the advertised receive window. The attacker requests a response larger than the 65,535-byte initial window and withholds WINDOW_UPDATE, so the stream process blocks while sending and stops reading, then floods small DATA frames on that stream. Every frame is queued in the stream's mailbox until the BEAM node runs out of memory.
Bandit.HTTP2.Connection.handle_frame/3 in lib/bandit/http2/connection.ex forwards each DATA frame to the stream process without consulting the receive window, and Bandit.HTTP2.FlowControl.compute_recv_window/2 replenishes the window as data arrives rather than as it is consumed, and never answers a violation with FLOW_CONTROL_ERROR.
This issue affects bandit: from 0.3.1 before 1.14.0.
Details
1. Connection-level window (lib/bandit/http2/connection.ex, lib/bandit/http2/flow_control.ex)
The handle_frame/3 clause for DATA frames sends the payload to the stream process before any window is checked. It then calls compute_recv_window/2, which subtracts the frame size and, once the window drops below 2^30, advertises a WINDOW_UPDATE back up to 2^31-1. A negative window is accepted, so a peer that overruns the window is never refused, and the window refills when data arrives rather than when it is consumed.
2. Stream-level window (lib/bandit/http2/stream.ex)
The stream receive window is debited only when the stream process reads the DATA message, and it never rejects a violation either.
3. Accumulation
While send_data/3 waits for send window, its selective receive matches only window updates and resets, so DATA messages pile up unread in the mailbox. A stream WINDOW_UPDATE of 1 byte, sent at intervals under the 15-second send timeout, keeps the stream alive while the attacker floods 1-byte DATA frames.
Proof of concept
- On an HTTP/2 connection, request a resource whose response exceeds 65,535 bytes and send no
WINDOW_UPDATE. The server sends one window's worth and the stream blocks insend_data/3. - Send 1-byte DATA frames on that stream in batches, ignoring the server's receive windows.
- Between batches, at intervals under 15 seconds, send a stream
WINDOW_UPDATEwith an increment of 1 to keep the blocked send alive. - Send a PING. It is acknowledged, and the server has sent neither
FLOW_CONTROL_ERRORnorGOAWAYwhile its memory grows with every frame.
Impact
An unauthenticated remote client can exhaust the memory of any Bandit server with HTTP/2 enabled by flooding DATA frames on a stream that is not reading its request body, such as one stalled sending a large response. The queued frames live in the BEAM node's memory, so exhausting it takes down every application on the node, not just the HTTP listener.
Workarounds
From 0.7.0, disable HTTP/2 with http_2_options: [enabled: false], which removes the vulnerable path.
Affected versions
Hex
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| bandit | >= 0.3.1, < 1.14.0 |
1.14.0 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
bandit Hex → 1.14.0
- mix
{:bandit, "~> 1.14.0"} # then: mix deps.update bandit
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
Weakness
CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
- Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
- Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
- Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).
References
Advisories
Fixes and patches
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| EEF-CVE-2026-116078 HTTP/2 request bodies made of 1-byte DATA frames amplify memory use in Bandit | Not rated yet | Also affects bandit |
| EEF-CVE-2026-108529 SETTINGS and stream-0 WINDOW_UPDATE frames trigger quadratic work over blocked streams in Bandit | Not rated yet | Also affects bandit |
| EEF-CVE-2026-110499 Client-chosen HPACK encoder table size is applied uncapped, growing per-connection state with every response in Bandit | Not rated yet | Also affects bandit |
| EEF-CVE-2026-109584 HTTP/2 cookie crumb join expands a small HPACK header block into an unbounded allocation in Bandit | Not rated yet | Also affects bandit |
| EEF-CVE-2026-111103 HTTP/2 StreamError recovery rolls back connection state and bypasses per-connection limits in Bandit | Not rated yet | Also affects bandit |
| EEF-CVE-2026-111101 HTTP/1.1 chunked request bodies made of 1-byte chunks amplify memory use in Bandit | Not rated yet | Also affects bandit |
| EEF-CVE-2026-113436 Quadratic bignum parsing of Content-Length and Host port values in Bandit | Not rated yet | Also affects bandit |
| EEF-CVE-2026-110314 WebSocket frames keep reaching the WebSock after a server-initiated close in Bandit | Not rated yet | Also affects bandit |
Credits: Daniel Coles, Jonatan Männchen / EEF, Mat Trudel, Neil Berkman, Peter Ullrich
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor