Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🦀 crates.io

GHSA-pp9r-xg4c-8j4x

Salvo Affected by Denial of Service via Unbounded Memory Allocation in Form Data Parsing

Also known asCVE-2026-33241
Published
Mar 19, 2026
Updated
Mar 25, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.4%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk35th percentile+0.40%
0.00%0.31%0.62%0.94%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.4%Apr 26Jun 26Jun 26

EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.

Blast Radius

1 pkg affected
🦀salvo

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects crates.io packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Summary

Salvo's form data parsing implementations (form_data() method and Extractible macro) do not enforce payload size limits before reading request bodies into memory. This allows attackers to cause Out-of-Memory (OOM) conditions by sending extremely large payloads, leading to service crashes and denial of service.

Details

Vulnerability Description

Three attack vectors exist in Salvo's form handling:

  1. URL-encoded form data (application/x-www-form-urlencoded)

    • Request::form_data() calls BodyExt::collect(body) which reads the entire body into memory without size checking
    • Affects handlers using req.form_data().await directly
  2. Multipart form data (multipart/form-data)

    • Similar unbounded memory allocation during parsing
    • Affects handlers processing multipart uploads
  3. Extractible macro

    • #[derive(Extractible)] with #[salvo(extract(default_source(from = "body")))] internally calls form_data()
    • Vulnerabilities propagate to all extractors using body sources

Root Cause

The FormData::read() implementation prioritizes convenience over safety by reading entire request bodies before validation. Even when Request::payload_with_max_size() is available, it's not automatically applied in the form parsing path.

PoC

  1. run Extract data from request example in readme.md in docker file with limited memory say 100mb.
  2. Send application/x-www-form-urlencoded OR multipart/form-data payload to the endpoint.
  3. The server process OOM-crashes, instead of returning 413 error.

Impact

Immediate Effects

  • Service Unavailability: Servers crash under memory pressure
  • Resource Exhaustion: Single request can consume all available memory
  • Cascading Failures: In containerized environments, OOM can affect other services

Attack Characteristics

  • Low Cost: Attacker needs minimal bandwidth (header only, body can be streamed)
  • No Authentication: Exploitable on public endpoints
  • Difficult to Rate-Limit: Traditional rate limiting may not prevent single large request
  • Amplification: Small network cost → large memory consumption

Real-World Scenarios

  1. Public API endpoints accepting form data
  2. User registration/profile update handlers
  3. File upload endpoints using multipart forms
  4. Any endpoint using #[derive(Extractible)] with body sources

Suggestion: Make Multipart File Upload Handling Explicit Opt-In

Problem Statement

Currently, Salvo's multipart form data parsing automatically handles file uploads without explicit developer intent. This creates several security and usability concerns:

  1. Unintended File Storage: Developers may unknowingly accept file uploads when they only intended to handle text fields
  2. Disk Space Exhaustion: Automatic file buffering to disk can fill storage without proper limits
  3. Resource Cleanup: Temporary files may not be properly cleaned up if handlers don't expect them
  4. Attack Surface: Endpoints inadvertently become file upload targets

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🦀crates.iosalvoall versions0.89.3

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for salvo. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

  2. Fix

    Update salvo to 0.89.3 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-pp9r-xg4c-8j4x is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. Workarounds

    If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-pp9r-xg4c-8j4x is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-pp9r-xg4c-8j4x. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

## Summary Salvo's form data parsing implementations (`form_data()` method and `Extractible` macro) do not enforce payload size limits before reading request bodies into memory. This allows attackers to cause Out-of-Memory (OOM) conditions by sending extremely large payloads, leading to service crashes and denial of service. ## Details ### Vulnerability Description Three attack vectors exist in Salvo's form handling: 1. **URL-encoded form data** (`application/x-www-form-urlencoded`) - `Request::form_data()` calls `BodyExt::collect(body)` which reads the entire body into memory without siz
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-pp9r-xg4c-8j4x in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-pp9r-xg4c-8j4x across crates.io dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.