In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M18 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.12, the handling of an HTTP/2 GOAWAY frame for a connection did not close streams…
apache·CWE-404·Published 2017-04-17
In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M18 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.12, the handling of an HTTP/2 GOAWAY frame for a connection did not close streams associated with that connection that were currently waiting for a WINDOW_UPDATE before allowing the application to write more data. These waiting streams each consumed a thread. A malicious client could therefore construct a series of HTTP/2 requests that would consume all available processing threads.
In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M18 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.12, the handling of an HTTP/2 GOAWAY frame for a connection did not close streams associated with that connection that were currently waiting for a WINDOW_UPDATE before allowing the application to write more data. These waiting streams each consumed a thread. A malicious client could therefore construct a series of HTTP/2 requests that would consume all available processing threads.
In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M18 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.12, the handling of an HTTP/2 GOAWAY frame for a connection did not close streams associated with that connection that were currently waiting for a WINDOW_UPDATE before allowing the application to write more data. These waiting streams each consumed a thread. A malicious client could therefore construct a series of HTTP/2 requests that would consume all available processing threads.
In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M18 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.12, the handling of an HTTP/2 GOAWAY frame for a connection did not close streams associated with that connection that were currently waiting for a WINDOW_UPDATE before allowing the application to write more data. These waiting streams each consumed a thread. A malicious client could therefore construct a series of HTTP/2 requests that would consume all available processing threads.
En Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 a 9.0.0.M18 y 8.5.0 a 8.5.12, el tratamiento de un marco HTTP/2 GOAWAY para una conexión que no cerró los flujos asociados con esa conexión que estaban esperando actualmente un WINDOW_UPDATE antes de permitir que la aplicación escriba más datos. Estos flujos de espera cada uno consumió un hilo. Un cliente malicioso podría construir una serie de peticiones HTTP/2 que consumirían todos los subprocesos de procesamiento disponibles.
| Version | Type | Source | Base | Exp | Impact | Vector |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 | Primary | NVD | 5.0 | 10.0 | 2.9 | AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P |
| 3.0 | Primary | NVD | 7.5 | 3.9 | 3.6 | CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H |
| 3.1 | Secondary | GHSA | 7.5 | — | — | CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H |