Skip to content

GHSA-5r5m-65gx-7vrh CVE-2023-25151 GO-2023-1546

otelhttp and otelbeego have DoS vulnerability for high cardinality metrics

High Go
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.97%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 62.05% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Impact

The v0.38.0 release of go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttp uses the httpconv.ServerRequest function to annotate metric measurements for the http.server.request_content_length, http.server.response_content_length, and http.server.duration instruments.

The ServerRequest function sets the http.target attribute value to be the whole request URI (including the query string)^1. The metric instruments do not "forget" previous measurement attributes when cumulative temporality is used, this means the cardinality of the measurements allocated is directly correlated with the unique URIs handled. If the query string is constantly random, this will result in a constant increase in memory allocation that can be used in a denial-of-service attack.

Pseudo-attack:

for infinite loop {
  r := generate_random_string()
  do_http_request("/some/path?random="+r)
}

Patches

  • go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttp - v0.39.0
  • go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/github.com/astaxie/beego/otelbeego - v0.39.0

Affected versions

Go

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.

go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/github.com/astaxie/beego/otelbeego Go → 0.39.0

go
go get go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/github.com/astaxie/beego/otelbeego@v0.39.0 && go mod tidy

go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttp Go → 0.39.0

go
go get go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttp@v0.39.0 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How to prevent it
  • 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. 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.
  • 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, or 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 is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-rcjv-mgp8-qvmr
OpenTelemetry-Go Contrib vulnerable to denial of service in otelhttp due to unbound cardinality metrics
High Linked by the source
GHSA-cg3q-j54f-5p7p
Uncontrolled Resource Consumption in promhttp
High Linked by the source
GHSA-cggf-277g-3q54
pypdf has possible large memory usage when parsing page tree
High Same weakness, CWE-400
GHSA-3g3m-2fjr-6pw4
Glob: AbortSignal cancellation bypass allows post-timeout filesystem traversal
Medium Same weakness, CWE-400
GHSA-42gh-23hr-vphw
pypdf has possible long runtimes when retrieving page labels
High Same weakness, CWE-400
GHSA-4vqv-7265-gm2w
pypdf has possible large memory usage for exceptions in strict mode
High Same weakness, CWE-400
GHSA-62m5-6wh8-28x7
pypdf has possible long runtimes/large memory usage for encrypted PDF files
High Same weakness, CWE-400
GHSA-7wch-p9px-956x
Forge: Regular expression denial of service in PEM decoding (pem.decode)
High Same weakness, CWE-400
Is this in your code?

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