MessagePack for Java is a serializer implementation for Java. A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in versions prior to 0.9.11 when deserializing .msgpack files containing EXT32 objects with attacker-controlled payload lengths. While MessagePack-Java parses extension headers lazily, it later trusts the declared EXT payload length when materializing the extension data. When ExtensionValue.getData() is invoked, the library attempts to allocate a byte array of the declared length without enforcing any upper bound. A malicious .msgpack file of only a few bytes can therefore trigger unbounded heap allocation, resulting in JVM heap exhaustion, process termination, or service unavailability. This vulnerability is triggered during model loading / deserialization, making it a model format vulnerability suitable for remote exploitation. The vulnerability enables a remote denial-of-service attack against applications that deserialize untrusted .msgpack model files using MessagePack for Java. A specially crafted but syntactically valid .msgpack file containing an EXT32 object with an attacker-controlled, excessively large payload length can trigger unbounded memory allocation during deserialization. When the model file is loaded, the library trusts the declared length metadata and attempts to allocate a byte array of that size, leading to rapid heap exhaustion, excessive garbage collection, or immediate JVM termination with an OutOfMemoryError. The attack requires no malformed bytes, user interaction, or elevated privileges and can be exploited remotely in real-world environments such as model registries, inference services, CI/CD pipelines, and cloud-based model hosting platforms that accept or fetch .msgpack artifacts. Because the malicious file is extremely small yet valid, it can bypass basic validation and scanning mechanisms, resulting in complete service unavailability and potential cascading failures in production systems. Version 0.9.11 fixes the vulnerability.
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.