EEF-CVE-2026-110499 CVE-2026-110499 GHSA-47x4-3fxf-82fr
Client-chosen HPACK encoder table size is applied uncapped, growing per-connection state with every response 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 48.84% 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 grow per-connection memory and CPU cost without bound via a large SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE. Bandit resizes its HPACK encoder table to whatever size the client advertises, up to 2^32-1 bytes, and indexes response headers into it. Because responses carry distinct values such as date or content-length, nothing is evicted and the table grows with every response for the life of the connection, while each lookup scans it linearly.
The SETTINGS handling in Bandit.HTTP2.Connection (lib/bandit/http2/connection.ex) passes remote_settings.header_table_size to HPAX.resize/2 with no server-side cap, and encode_headers encodes every response header as :store. Serving N responses on one connection therefore costs O(N²) CPU in the connection process.
This issue affects bandit: from 0.3.6 before 1.14.0.
Details
1. Table size (lib/bandit/http2/connection.ex)
On every SETTINGS frame, Bandit.HTTP2.Connection passes the peer's SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE straight to HPAX.resize/2 for the encoder table, accepting values up to 2^32-1. No server-side limit is applied.
2. Indexing
encode_headers encodes every response header as :store, adding it to the dynamic table. Headers whose values differ per response (date, content-length, set-cookie, x-request-id, a reflected location) produce new entries, and with a limit of about 4 GB none are evicted.
3. Cost
HPAX's lookup_by_header scans the table linearly for each header it encodes, so every response costs more than the one before it. Serving N responses on one connection costs O(N²) CPU in the connection process, and the table holds every entry for as long as the connection stays open.
Proof of concept
- Open an HTTP/2 connection and advertise a
SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZEof 4294967295 in the initial SETTINGS frame. - Send cheap requests one after another on that connection, each to an endpoint whose response carries a header value that changes per request.
- Time the round trips. In the reporter's run, the last 1,000 of 12,000 requests took 3.68 times as long as the first 1,000.
Impact
An unauthenticated remote client that keeps an HTTP/2 connection busy with cheap requests makes every response on it progressively more expensive, because the encoder table it enlarged never shrinks. Holding several such connections open ties up server CPU and memory for as long as the attacker keeps them alive.
Workarounds
From 0.7.0, cap the requests one HTTP/2 connection may serve, for example with http_2_options: [max_requests: 1000], so each connection and its encoder table is closed before the cost grows large. Alternatively, disable HTTP/2 with http_2_options: [enabled: false].
Affected versions
Hex
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| bandit | >= 0.3.6, < 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-2026-109584 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 |
| EEF-CVE-2026-114213 WebSocket 1-byte continuation frames bypass `max_fragmented_message_size` in Bandit | Not rated yet | Also affects bandit |
Credits: Jonatan Männchen / EEF, Mat Trudel, 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