CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2016-0747

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Published: Feb 15, 2016 | Modified: Apr 12, 2025
CVSS 3.x
5.3
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS 2.x
5 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
RedHat/V2
4.3 MODERATE
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

The resolver in nginx before 1.8.1 and 1.9.x before 1.9.10 does not properly limit CNAME resolution, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (worker process resource consumption) via vectors related to arbitrary name resolution.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
NginxF50.6.18 (including)1.8.1 (excluding)
NginxF51.9.0 (including)1.9.10 (excluding)
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6RedHatrh-nginx18-nginx-1:1.8.1-1.el6*
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.6 EUSRedHatrh-nginx18-nginx-1:1.8.1-1.el6*
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.7 EUSRedHatrh-nginx18-nginx-1:1.8.1-1.el6*
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7RedHatrh-nginx18-nginx-1:1.8.1-1.el7*
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 EUSRedHatrh-nginx18-nginx-1:1.8.1-1.el7*
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.2 EUSRedHatrh-nginx18-nginx-1:1.8.1-1.el7*
NginxUbuntudevel*
NginxUbuntuesm-infra-legacy/trusty*
NginxUbuntuesm-infra/xenial*
NginxUbuntuprecise*
NginxUbuntutrusty*
NginxUbuntutrusty/esm*
NginxUbuntuupstream*
NginxUbuntuvivid*
NginxUbuntuwily*
NginxUbuntuxenial*
NginxUbuntuyakkety*
NginxUbuntuzesty*

Potential Mitigations

  • Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:

  • 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.

References