CVE-2024-9056
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 · uneditedBentoML version v1.3.4post1 is vulnerable to a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. The vulnerability can be exploited by appending characters, such as dashes (-), to the end of a multipart boundary in an HTTP request. This causes the server to continuously process each character, leading to excessive resource consumption and rendering the service unavailable. The issue is unauthenticated and does not require any user interaction, impacting all users of the service.
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 · high confidenceBentoML v1.3.4post1 contains a denial-of-service vulnerability in its HTTP multipart request parsing. Attackers can trigger excessive resource consumption by appending characters like dashes to the multipart boundary in an HTTP request, causing the server to continuously process each character in a loop.
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
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the installed BentoML versionRun 'pip show bentoml' or check your dependency lock file to retrieve the exact version number of the BentoML packageAffected if The installed version is exactly v1.3.4post1, as this is the only version listed as affected
-
Confirm BentoML HTTP service is runningCheck if a BentoML service is actively listening on HTTP ports (typically port 3000 or 8000) using commands like 'netstat -tlnp' or 'ss -tlnp'Affected if The BentoML HTTP service is exposed and accessible to network requests; the vulnerability only applies when HTTP multipart requests can be received
-
Verify multipart request handling is enabledReview your BentoML service configuration or code to confirm that the service accepts HTTP POST requests with multipart/form-data content typesAffected if Multipart form data processing is enabled, which is the default behavior for BentoML services accepting file uploads or complex form submissions
-
Check for existing request limitsInspect your BentoML configuration files, deployment manifests, or upstream proxies (nginx, load balancers) for any configured limits on request size, request timeout, or multipart boundary lengthAffected if No limits are configured on multipart request size or processing timeout, leaving the service vulnerable to unbounded character-by-character processing loops
You are affected if your environment runs BentoML v1.3.4post1 with an exposed HTTP endpoint that processes multipart requests without request size or timeout constraints.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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 dataApply the vendor patch when available; as an interim measure, implement request size limits, enforce timeouts on request processing, or deploy a WAF to filter malformed multipart requests.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-9056 — 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 sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-9056 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
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.
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.
- 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