Mealie is a self hosted recipe manager and meal planner. Prior to 1.4.0, the safe_scrape_html function utilizes a user-controlled URL to issue a request to a remote server, however these requests are not rate-limited. While there are efforts to prevent DDoS by implementing a timeout on requests, it is possible for an attacker to issue a large number of requests to the server which will be handled in batches based on the configuration of the Mealie server. The chunking of responses is helpful for mitigating memory exhaustion on the Mealie server, however a single request to an arbitrarily large external file (e.g. a Debian ISO) is often sufficient to completely saturate a CPU core assigned to the Mealie container. Without rate limiting in place, it is possible to not only sustain traffic against an external target indefinitely, but also to exhaust the CPU resources assigned to the Mealie container. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.4.0.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource, thereby enabling an actor to influence the amount of resources consumed, eventually leading to the exhaustion of available resources.
Limited resources include memory, file system storage, database connection pool entries, and CPU. If an attacker can trigger the allocation of these limited resources, but the number or size of the resources is not controlled, then the attacker could cause a denial of service that consumes all available resources. This would prevent valid users from accessing the product, and it could potentially have an impact on the surrounding environment. For example, a memory exhaustion attack against an application could slow down the application as well as its host operating system. There are at least three distinct scenarios which can commonly lead to resource exhaustion:
Resource exhaustion problems are often result due to an incorrect implementation of the following situations:
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.