EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationNo fix is confirmed yet: check the vendor's advisory for a fixed release; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.8%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
No fix is confirmed yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for the fix.
The CVE record's CNA (Apache Software Foundation) lists Apache Software Foundation Apache bRPC versions before 1.18.0 as affected. No release containing a fix is confirmed on record.
Uncontrolled resource consumption in the HTTP/2 (h2) receive path of Apache bRPC (version < 1.18.0) on all platforms allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to crash the server or grow its memory without bound by sending crafted HTTP/2 frames.
Root Cause:
The h2 parser, enabled by default on every bRPC server port and used by h2/gRPC clients, trusts the peer to respect receive-side limits that bRPC advertises but never enforces:
- SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS defaulted to unlimited and was never checked on the server, letting a peer pin an unbounded number of pending streams per connection (~100x memory amplification).
- SETTINGS_MAX_HEADER_LIST_SIZE defaulted to unlimited and was never enforced; 1-byte HPACK indexed references amplify a small HEADERS frame ~4000x into an unbounded decoded header list ("HPACK bomb"), and a never-completed HEADERS/CONTINUATION block accumulates memory without limit.
- Control-frame acks (PING/SETTINGS acks, RST_STREAM, GOAWAY, WINDOW_UPDATE) unconditionally bypassed the -socket_max_unwritten_bytes write cap, so a PING flood combined with withheld TCP reads grew the connection buffer without the documented bound.
- The HPACK dynamic table size update was validated against the protocol default (4096) instead of the advertised SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE, which together with the dynamic-table queue/accounting issue can desynchronize the decoder and dereference NULL (crash).
Affected scenarios:
Any bRPC server serving HTTP/h2/gRPC to an untrusted network, and any bRPC h2/gRPC client connecting to an untrusted backend. The h2 parser runs before any Authenticator check on the shared port.
How to fix:
Upgrade bRPC, or apply the patch in https://github.com/apache/brpc/pull/3474.
Note:
After applying the fix the following limits are enforced by default:
- max_concurrent_streams: 1024 per connection (4294967295 restores unlimited).
- max_header_list_size: 1 MiB decoded size per stream (4294967295 restores unlimited; -h2_client_max_header_list_size for clients).
- h2 control-frame acks respect -socket_max_unwritten_bytes (-h2_ack_ignore_eovercrowded restores the old behavior).
Requests exceeding these limits are rejected (RST_STREAM(REFUSED_STREAM) or a connection error).
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1 · CVSS v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.8% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
No fix is confirmed yet. Check the vendor's advisory for a fixed release; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it