CVE-2026-81755VulnerabilityPublished 21 Oct 2026Updated 30 Oct 2026

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-81755· High 7.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 1.18.0 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 17:17 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CISA-ADP	CVSS 3.1	7.5

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.18.0

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 21 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 30 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-74m8-q5wc-qpjc

What to do

Upgrade Apache bRPC and apache/brpc to 1.18.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache bRPCapache/brpc	Affected <1.18.0	Fixed in 1.18.0
GitHubapache/brpc`pkg:github/apache/brpc`Other threats	Affected <1.18.0	Fixed in 1.18.0

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Upgrade Apache bRPC to version 1.18.0 or later. Alternatively, apply the patch available at https://github.com/apache/brpc/pull/3493. The fix enforces a limit of 64 streams per RPC request by default, configurable via the `stream_max_streams_per_request` gflag. Applications requiring more than 64 streams per request must explicitly raise this limit; otherwise, excessive stream requests will be rejected.

Description

Apache bRPC versions prior to 1.18.0 contain a vulnerability in the streaming RPC component that allows remote attackers to exhaust server memory and cause denial of service. This occurs because the server does not limit the number of streams accepted in a single RPC request, allowing a crafted request to declare an excessive number of streams. The default maximum request body size can carry millions of stream identifiers, each consuming server resources. The issue is fixed in version 1.18.0 by introducing a limit on the number of streams per request.

Impact

A remote attacker can cause a denial of service by sending a single RPC request with an excessive number of streams, leading to server memory exhaustion. There is no impact on confidentiality or integrity, but availability is severely affected.

Summary

The vulnerability in Apache bRPC (before version 1.18.0) arises from uncontrolled resource consumption in the streaming RPC feature. A client can specify multiple stream identifiers in the repeated field `stream_settings.extra_stream_ids` of the RPC meta. The server-side function `StreamAccept` creates a response stream for each declared stream without limiting the count, constrained only by the maximum request body size (default 64MB). Each stream allocates its own execution queue and resources, enabling a single malicious request to exhaust server memory and cause a denial of service. The fix in version 1.18.0 adds a gflag `stream_max_streams_per_request` defaulting to 64, rejecting requests exceeding this limit before stream creation.

CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place.
Architecture and Design
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or; uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Regular Expression Exponential Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Sustained Client Engagement (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Oct 2026, 17:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-400

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats