Vulnerability Database

328,409

Total vulnerabilities in the database

DoS vulnerabilities persist in ESAPI file uploads despite remediation of CVE-2023-24998

Impact

ESAPI 2.5.2.0 and later addressed the DoS vulnerability described in CVE-2023-24998, which Apache Commons FileUpload 1.5 attempted to remediate. But while writing up a new security bulletin regarding the impact on the affected ESAPI HTTPUtilities.getFileUploads methods (or more specifically those methods in the DefaultHTTPUtilities implementation class), I realized that a DoS vulnerability still persists in ESAPI and for that matter in Apache Commons FileUpload as well.

CVE-2023-24998

Patches

ESAPI 2.5.2.0 or later.

Workarounds

  • See the 'Solutions' section of Security Bulletin 11, in the References section. If you are not using ESAPI file uploads, see also the 'Workarounds' section.
  • Deploy an external WAF or other suitable DoS protection.
  • Add additional defenses to your code using HTTPUtilities.getFileUpload, such as requiring prior authentication, restricting how many / much content can be uploaded per user per day or per hour, etc. (It is the opinion of the ESAPI development team that such required controls should not be added to ESAPI because it is a general purpose security library and thus ESAPI ought not be enforcing generic policies like these on everyone, especially it it could break existing code bases.)

References

Security Bulletin 11: How Does CVE-2023-24998 Impact ESAPI? New ESAPI 2.5.2.0 or later Javadoc on HTTPUtilities.getFileUploads: https://javadoc.io/static/org.owasp.esapi/esapi/2.5.2.0/org/owasp/esapi/HTTPUtilities.html#getFileUploads-javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest-java.io.File-java.util.List- (Note: This link won't work until the 2.5.2.0 release is made official.)

Final Word

(Especially to GitHub Advance Security team / GitHub as a CNA) -- I do not really wish to file a CVE for this. I had originally considered it, but there is no real way to address the general DoS scenarios for file uploads without breaking ESAPI client code which we are not willing to do. The clients have to take some responsibility for this themselves. In the next ESAPI release, I am going to add a reference to the appropriate Javadoc to this GitHub Security Advisory, but that's the best we can do. If you wish to discuss this with me, please first contact me via email at kevin.w.wall@gmail.com.

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: Unknown
  • Score:
  • AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

No CWE or OWASP classifications available.

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.