Uncontrolled Resource ConsumptionWeakness · CWE-400

CVE-2024-38828

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-11-18
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
Spring MVC controller methods with an @RequestBody byte[] method parameter are vulnerable to a DoS attack.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · moderate confidence

Spring MVC controller methods that use @RequestBody with byte[] method parameters lack proper size limits on incoming request payloads, allowing attackers to send excessively large requests that can exhaust server resources and cause denial of service.

MitigationReplace @RequestBody byte[] parameters with typed request objects (such as MultipartFile or custom DTOs) that include size validation, or configure Spring's request size limits globally via properties.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
Low

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

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify if the application uses Spring MVC
    Search for Spring Framework dependencies in build files (pom.xml, build.gradle) or examine the classpath for spring-webmvc or spring-web artifacts. Look for @Controller or @RestController annotations in the codebase.
    Affected if The application uses Spring Framework without spring-webmvc or spring-web on the classpath, this CVE does not apply.
  2. Locate controllers using @RequestBody with byte[] parameters
    Search source code for method signatures containing @RequestBody byte[] or @RequestBody Byte[]. Examples: 'public void handle(@RequestBody byte[] data)' or similar patterns in @Controller/@RestController classes.
    Affected if Controllers with @RequestBody byte[] parameters are present and no size limits are configured.
  3. Verify if global request size limits are configured
    Check application.properties or application.yml for Spring's size limit properties: spring.servlet.multipart.max-request-size, spring.servlet.multipart.max-file-size, or server.tomcat.max-http-form-post-size. Also check for custom Filter or HandlerInterceptor implementations that enforce size limits.
    Affected if Global size limits are not set or are set to values larger than typical legitimate requests, making the application vulnerable.
  4. Check for size validation on byte[] parameters
    Inspect the controller methods using byte[] for custom validation logic (such as checking array length before processing) or for the presence of @Size, @Max, or similar validation annotations on the parameter.
    Affected if No validation annotations or manual size checks exist on the @RequestBody byte[] parameters.
  5. Confirm the endpoint accepts file or binary uploads
    Examine if the byte[] parameter endpoints are used for file uploads, binary data submission, or request body processing that could accept large payloads. Review the HTTP methods (POST/PUT) and content types handled.
    Affected if The endpoint accepts request bodies that could reasonably exceed reasonable size limits.

The environment is affected if Spring MVC controllers use @RequestBody byte[] parameters without explicit size limits (global configuration or individual validation) on endpoints that accept large request payloads.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Replace @RequestBody byte[] parameters with typed request objects (such as MultipartFile or custom DTOs) that include size validation, or configure Spring's request size limits globally via properties.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
20.0 hours of engineering $3,500
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-38828 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-38828 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data