CVE-2026-14456

Issue summary: When an OpenSSL QUIC server (Listener SSL object) processes valid QUIC Initial packets for unknown destination connection IDs, it can allocate and queue new incoming channels without enforcing any limit.

Impact summary: A remote peer that can make many Initial packets reach the server listener faster than the application accepts connections, can cause the memory allocated to store the per-channel state to grow without any limits, potentially making the QUIC listener unavailable and causing Denial of Service.

CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

Description: The function that handles inbound QUIC packets uses Connection-Id from the packet header to find an existing connection (QUIC channel). If no existing connection is found and the packet type is INITIAL, the function treats the packet as a new connection. It allocates a new channel object and inserts it into a queue where it waits to be accepted by the local application with SSL_accept(3ossl). The memory occupied by these initial channel objects may grow without bounds if the application is not able to call SSL_accept() frequently enough to serve these inbound connection requests.

The issue is present since OpenSSL 3.5 when the QUIC server implementation was added.

The fix introduces a limit for pending connections. The default limit is set to 256 pending connections (waiting to be accepted by the local application). Applications may change the default by calling SSL_set_value_uint(3ossl).

FIPS impact: no The FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC implementation is outside of the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.

Weakness

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.

Affected Software

Name	Vendor	Start Version	End Version
Nodejs	Ubuntu	esm-apps/jammy	*
Nodejs	Ubuntu	jammy	*

Potential Mitigations

Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
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 can be difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery.
Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems.
When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users.
Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).

NVD	https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-14456
CWE	https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/770.html

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

Weakness

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

Related Attack Patterns

References