Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS bc-fips on All (API modules), Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java LTS bcprov-lts8on on All (API modules) allows Excessive Allocation. This vulnerability is associated with program files core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCMSIV.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA224NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA3NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHAKENativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA512NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA384NativeDigest.Java.
This issue affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS: from 2.1.0 through 2.1.1; Bouncy Castle for Java LTS: from 2.73.0 through 2.73.7.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
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.