CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
highDenial of Servicepublic exploit

CVE-2026-63452

CVE-2026-63452 — Suricata http1: repeated brotli compression bombs can cause excessive CPU consumption

Suricata is a network Intrusion Detection System, Intrusion Prevention System and Network Security Monitoring engine. From 8.0.0 until 8.0.6, the HTTP/1 parser limits decompression work per transaction but does not limit how many small brotli compression bombs a single flow can submit. With response-body-decompress-layer-limit enabled, repeated compressed responses make the decompression paths in rust/htp perform expensive work for every transaction, degrading packet processing and potentially causing loss of monitoring visibility or denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 8.0.6.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, OISF (CNA), GitHub, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

0%

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

OISF

suricata

CVSS base

7.5

high

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade suricata to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

  • Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
  • Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
  • Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatus
OISFsuricata>= 8.0.0, < 8.0.6Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

None

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
7.5CVSS 3.1high3.93.6GitHub (CNA), OISF (CNA)

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

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-400 · Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

  • DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart
  • DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU)
  • DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory)
  • DoS: Resource Consumption (Other)

Mitigation: 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.

CWE-409 · Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification)

  • DoS: Amplification
  • DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart
  • DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU)
  • DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory)

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
  • CWE-409

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-147 · XML Ping of the DeathCAPEC-492 · Regular Expression Exponential BlowupCAPEC-197 · XML Entity Expansion
  • T1499Endpoint Denial of Service

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

1

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /1, /htp.
  • Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable suricata.
  • Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 public PoC repositories were reported.
web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

  1. 2026
  2. Added · CVSS 3.1 7.5 (AV:N)

    Sep 18, 2026 · NVD

  3. Initial · CVE published

    Sep 18, 2026 · NVD

  4. CVE published by MITRE.

    Sep 18, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

5 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-63452 is Suricata http1: repeated brotli compression bombs can cause excessive CPU consumption, a high vulnerability affecting suricata from OISF. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-63452. Public exploit evidence is: 1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 7.5 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.