In Eclipse Jetty versions 12.0.0 to 12.0.16 included, an HTTP/2 client can specify a very large value for the HTTP/2 settings parameter SETTINGS_MAX_HEADER_LIST_SIZE. The Jetty HTTP/2 server does not perform validation on this setting, and tries to allocate a ByteBuffer of the specified capacity to encode HTTP responses, likely resulting in OutOfMemoryError being thrown, or even the JVM process exiting.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jetty | Eclipse | 12.0.0 (including) | 12.0.17 (excluding) |
| OCP-Tools-4.12-RHEL-8 | RedHat | jenkins-0:2.504.2.1750932984-3.el8 | * |
| OCP-Tools-4.12-RHEL-8 | RedHat | jenkins-2-plugins-0:4.12.1750933270-1.el8 | * |
| OCP-Tools-4.13-RHEL-8 | RedHat | jenkins-0:2.504.2.1750916374-3.el8 | * |
| OCP-Tools-4.13-RHEL-8 | RedHat | jenkins-2-plugins-0:4.13.1750916671-1.el8 | * |
| OCP-Tools-4.14-RHEL-8 | RedHat | jenkins-0:2.504.2.1750903189-3.el8 | * |
| OCP-Tools-4.14-RHEL-8 | RedHat | jenkins-2-plugins-0:4.14.1750903529-1.el8 | * |
| OCP-Tools-4.15-RHEL-8 | RedHat | jenkins-0:2.504.2.1750856366-3.el8 | * |
| OCP-Tools-4.15-RHEL-8 | RedHat | jenkins-2-plugins-0:4.15.1750856638-1.el8 | * |
| OCP-Tools-4.16-RHEL-9 | RedHat | jenkins-0:2.504.2.1750857144-3.el9 | * |
| OCP-Tools-4.16-RHEL-9 | RedHat | jenkins-2-plugins-0:4.16.1750857315-1.el9 | * |
| OCP-Tools-4.17-RHEL-9 | RedHat | jenkins-0:2.504.2.1750851690-3.el9 | * |
| OCP-Tools-4.17-RHEL-9 | RedHat | jenkins-2-plugins-0:4.17.1750851950-1.el9 | * |
| OCP-Tools-4.18-RHEL-9 | RedHat | jenkins-0:2.504.2.1750846524-3.el9 | * |
| OCP-Tools-4.18-RHEL-9 | RedHat | jenkins-2-plugins-0:4.18.1750846854-1.el9 | * |
| Red Hat AMQ Broker 7.13.1 | RedHat | jetty-http2-common | * |
| Red Hat build of Apache Camel 4.10.3 for Spring Boot | RedHat | jetty-http2-common | * |
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.