What is CWE-400?
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
CWE-400 is a class-level weakness in MITRE’s Common Weakness Enumeration, with a MITRE likelihood of exploit of High. Applicable platforms: Language: Not Language-Specific; Technology: Not Technology-Specific.
Source: MITRE CWE (CWE-400 definition, reproduced verbatim). Counts and linkage below are Threadlinqs data.
Consequences
- Availability — DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU), DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory), DoS: Resource Consumption (Other). If an attacker can trigger the allocation of the limited resources, but the number or size of the resources is not controlled, then the most common result is denial of service. This would prevent valid users from accessing the product, and it could potentially have an impact on the surrounding environment, i.e., the product may slow down, crash due to unhandled errors, or lock out legitimate users. For example, a memory exhaustion attack against an application could slow down the application as…
- Access Control, Other — Bypass Protection Mechanism, Other. In some cases it may be possible to force the product to "fail open" in the event of resource exhaustion. The state of the product -- and possibly the security functionality - may then be compromised.
Source: MITRE CWE, common consequences.
How CWE-400 is exploited in the wild
Threadlinqs maps 50 CVEs to CWE-400, published between 2021-12-10 and 2026-10-01. 3 are listed in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, the authoritative record of exploitation in the wild, and 2 are tied to ransomware campaigns. By CVSS v3 severity the set splits into 2 critical, 21 high, 18 medium, 3 low. The highest EPSS score in the set is 99.9% (CVE-2023-44487), the modelled probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. 43 tracked threats reference CWE-400 directly or through a CVE it covers; the most recent is “Kiteworks 9.5.1 Patches 126 Vulnerabilities Including Critical Account Takeover in Core and Email Protection Gateway (CVE-2026-102147, CVE-2026-102149)” (2026-10-02). Affected products concentrate in Elastic (10), Gerrit (2), IBM (2), among 39 vendors in total.
Vulnerabilities (CVEs)
Showing 40 of 50 CVEs mapped to CWE-400, CISA KEV first, then by CVSS score.
- CVE-2021-44228 — CISA KEV · CVSS 10 critical · EPSS 94.3% · published 2021-12-10
- CVE-2023-44487 — CISA KEV · CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 99.9% · published 2023-10-10
- CVE-2026-45498 — CISA KEV · CVSS 4 medium · EPSS 4.1% · published 2026-05-20
- CVE-2026-55450 — CVSS 9.3 critical · EPSS 0.3% · published 2026-06-23
- CVE-2026-49160 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 48.4% · published 2026-06-09
- CVE-2026-56819 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.6% · published 2026-07-21
- CVE-2026-68763 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.5% · published 2026-08-25
- CVE-2026-67861 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-08-04
- CVE-2026-84375 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.3% · published 2026-09-01
- CVE-2026-82397 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.3% · published 2026-08-31
- CVE-2026-85443 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.3% · published 2026-09-03
- CVE-2026-86344 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.3% · published 2026-10-01
- CVE-2026-77384 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.3% · published 2026-08-24
- CVE-2026-55446 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.3% · published 2026-06-23
- CVE-2026-9071 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.3% · published 2026-06-22
- CVE-2026-9675 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-06-17
- CVE-2026-44435 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-07-16
- CVE-2026-67864 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-08-05
- CVE-2026-67862 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-08-04
- CVE-2025-67779 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.1% · published 2025-12-12
- CVE-2026-12151 — CVSS 7.5 high · published 2026-06-17
- CVE-2026-67978 — CVSS 7.5 high · published 2026-08-03
- CVE-2026-92596 — CVSS 7.5 high · published 2026-09-16
- CVE-2026-52890 — CVSS 7.1 high · EPSS 0.3% · published 2026-07-15
- CVE-2026-57576 — CVSS 6.5 medium · EPSS 0.7% · published 2026-09-22
- CVE-2026-82294 — CVSS 6.5 medium · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-09-26
- CVE-2026-82300 — CVSS 6.5 medium · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-09-26
- CVE-2026-94396 — CVSS 6.5 medium · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-09-26
- CVE-2026-94397 — CVSS 6.5 medium · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-09-26
- CVE-2026-94398 — CVSS 6.5 medium · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-09-26
- CVE-2026-94399 — CVSS 6.5 medium · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-09-26
- CVE-2026-94400 — CVSS 6.5 medium · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-09-26
- CVE-2026-63260 — CVSS 6.5 medium · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-07-21
- CVE-2026-63261 — CVSS 6.5 medium · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-07-21
- CVE-2026-90554 — CVSS 6.2 medium · EPSS 0.1% · published 2026-09-12
- CVE-2026-103760 — CVSS 5.9 medium · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-10-01
- CVE-2026-9320 — CVSS 5.9 medium · EPSS 0.3% · published 2026-06-22
- CVE-2026-92114 — CVSS 5.3 medium · EPSS 0.5% · published 2026-09-15
- CVE-2026-84857 — CVSS 5.3 medium · EPSS 0.3% · published 2026-09-02
- CVE-2026-44433 — CVSS 5.3 medium · published 2026-07-16
Affected vendors
- Elastic — 10 CVEs
- Gerrit — 2 CVEs
- IBM — 2 CVEs
- Microsoft — 2 CVEs
- Siemens — 2 CVEs
- h2o — 2 CVEs
- langflow-ai — 2 CVEs
- undici — 2 CVEs
- Apache — 1 CVE
- Apache Software Foundation — 1 CVE
- Caddyserver — 1 CVE
- Eclipse — 1 CVE
Threat activity
43 tracked threats cite CWE-400; the 25 most recent are listed.
- Kiteworks 9.5.1 Patches 126 Vulnerabilities Including Critical Account Takeover in Core and Email Protection Gateway (CVE-2026-102147, CVE-2026-102149)CRITICAL
- WatchGuard Fireware OS Critical Code Injection Vulnerability in BOVPN over TLS Client (CVE-2026-86131)CRITICAL
- BigDiskBuster PoC Blocks Windows Defender Signature/Platform Updates (DoS)MEDIUM
- BigDiskBuster PoC Blocks Microsoft Defender Antivirus Updates via Disk-Space ExhaustionMEDIUM
- Multiple Fortinet FortiOS Vulnerabilities (incl. CVE-2024-23113) Affect Siemens RUGGEDCOM APE1808 via Bundled Fortinet NGFW < V7.4.3 (SSA-832273)CRITICAL
- DragonForce Ransomware Attack on RubberMill, Inc. — ~340GB Data Exfiltration Including PII, Credentials, CAD Files with Defense Mil-Spec ReferencesCRITICAL
- Chinese-Speaking Operator "Nie" Uses SecFlow AI Orchestration Framework (Claude, Qwen, DeepSeek) and GLUTTON Steganographic Webshell in Multi-Country Espionage CampaignHIGH
- EtherHiding: Blockchain-Based C2 on Polygon Fuels ClickFix Backdoor + Banking-Trojan Extension Campaign Adopted by Criminal, North Korean, and Iran-Linked ActorsHIGH
- Adobe and Nvidia Patch Dozens of Vulnerabilities Across Multiple Products, Including Two Critical Flaws in Nvidia's NemoClaw AI Agent Stack and a CVSS 10.0 Adobe Campaign Classic ChainCRITICAL
- Apache Tomcat 11.0.25 Fixes 11 Vulnerabilities Including HTTP/2 DoS, Authorization Bypass, and Auth Fail-Open Flaws — NVD Scores 5 of 11 CRITICAL/HIGH Despite Apache's Low/Moderate RatingsCRITICAL
- LockBit 5.0 Ransomware Extortion Claim Against US Bank (U.S. Bancorp)HIGH
- Bendix EC80 Truck Brake Controller: 2024 Safety Recall Covertly Patched RCE and DoS VulnerabilitiesHIGH
- OWASP GenAI LLM Top 10 2026 — Community-Driven Security Guidance for AI ApplicationsMEDIUM
- Researcher Demonstrates Full C2 Inside ChatGPT Secure Sandbox via Chained Attack Techniques at Black Hat USA 2026HIGH
- NightmareEclipse Coordinated Disclosure Breach Campaign: 9+ Windows Zero-Days (CVE-2026-33825, CVE-2026-41091, CVE-2026-45498, CVE-2026-45585, CVE-2026-45586) Dumped Outside Responsible Disclosure and Weaponized in Real-World IntrusionsCRITICAL
- Node.js Patches 11 Security Flaws Across v22.23.2, v24.18.1, v26.5.1 (HTTP/2 DoS, Permission Model Bypass, TLS/mTLS Issues)HIGH
- Multiple Vulnerabilities in PHP (GovCERT.HK A26-07-52): Phar Symlink DoS, Bundled-libgd GIF Memory Corruption, pgsql SQL Injection, and BCMath Out-of-Bounds Write (CVE-2026-7260, CVE-2026-9672, CVE-2026-17543, CVE-2026-17544)HIGH
- France Threat Landscape: Qilin/MedusaLocker/LockBit Ransomware and NoName057(16) Hacktivist DDoS Campaign Amid 4x Dark Web Activity SurgeHIGH
- OpenSSL Silently Patches "HollowByte" Memory-Exhaustion DoS VulnerabilityMEDIUM
- OpenSSL "HollowByte" DoS Vulnerability — Memory Exhaustion via Malformed ClientHello (11-Byte Trigger)MEDIUM
- HollowByte: OpenSSL Pre-Authentication TLS DoS Flaw Bloats Server Memory With 11-Byte PayloadMEDIUM
- OpenSSL "HollowByte" TLS Handshake Memory-Amplification DoS (No CVE Assigned)MEDIUM
- 148 Malicious npm Packages ('Lucide Proxy') Disguise as School Wi-Fi Bypass / Tutoring Proxies to Hijack Browsers into a DDoS BotnetHIGH
- 148 npm Packages Disguised as Student Tutoring Proxies Turn Browsers Into DDoS Botnet (Lucide Proxy)HIGH
- Pro-Iran Hacktivist Ecosystem Uses Telegram to Coordinate DDoS, Hack-and-Leak, and Credential-Theft Campaigns (Handala, 313 Team, Cyber Fattah, Dark Storm, Keymous+, and Affiliated Personas)MEDIUM
Mitigations
- 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. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
- 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. 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…
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
- Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
Source: MITRE CWE, potential mitigations.
Detection methods (MITRE CWE)
- Automated Static Analysis (effectiveness: Limited): Automated static analysis typically has limited utility in recognizing resource exhaustion problems, except for program-independent system resources such as files, sockets, and processes. For system resources, automated static analysis may be able to detect circumstances in which resources are not released after they have expired. Automated analysis of configuration files may be able to detect settings that do not specify a maximum value. Automated static analysis tools will not be appropriate…
- Automated Dynamic Analysis (effectiveness: Moderate): Certain automated dynamic analysis techniques may be effective in spotting resource exhaustion problems, especially with resources such as processes, memory, and connections. The technique may involve generating a large number of requests to the product within a short time frame.
- Fuzzing (effectiveness: Opportunistic): While fuzzing is typically geared toward finding low-level implementation bugs, it can inadvertently find resource exhaustion problems. This can occur when the fuzzer generates a large number of test cases but does not restart the targeted product in between test cases. If an individual test case produces a crash, but it does not do so reliably, then an inability to handle resource exhaustion may be the cause.
Source: MITRE CWE, detection methods. Threadlinqs detection rules for the threats above are Blue tier and higher.