CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-2811

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Published: Apr 26, 2025 | Modified: Apr 28, 2025
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

A vulnerability was found in GL.iNet GL-A1300 Slate Plus, GL-AR300M16 Shadow, GL-AR300M Shadow, GL-AR750 Creta, GL-AR750S-EXT Slate, GL-AX1800 Flint, GL-AXT1800 Slate AX, GL-B1300 Convexa-B, GL-B3000 Marble, GL-BE3600 Slate 7, GL-E750, GL-E750V2 Mudi, GL-MT300N-V2 Mango, GL-MT1300 Beryl, GL-MT2500 Brume 2, GL-MT3000 Beryl AX, GL-MT6000 Flint 2, GL-SFT1200 Opal, GL-X300B Collie, GL-X750 Spitz, GL-X3000 Spitz AX, GL-XE300 Puli and GL-XE3000 Puli AX 4.x. It has been declared as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component API. The manipulation leads to inefficient regular expression complexity. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.

Weakness

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.

Extended Description

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:

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