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
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.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| OISF | suricata | >= 8.0.0, < 8.0.6 | Vulnerable |
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.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 | CVSS 3.1 | high | 3.9 | 3.6 | GitHub (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.
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.
- 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.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.
- 2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 7.5 (AV:N)
Sep 18, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 18, 2026 · NVD
CVE published by MITRE.
Sep 18, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
References
5 on the record
- github.com/OISF/suricata/commit/392b6aee2971a4b5e573850f5d832112509bcb5f
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
- github.com/OISF/suricata/commit/e369bf29ee5bbd0cdf6a98dc4a3357ba43c86a88
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
- github.com/OISF/suricata/releases/tag/suricata-8.0.6
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
- github.com/OISF/suricata/security/advisories/GHSA-j9cx-w9xm-5x84
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
- redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/8694
Vendor Advisory, Mitre
Elsewhere on this site
- OISFevery CVE for this vendor
- Denial of Servicesame class
- CWE-400other pages naming this weakness
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.