Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a reset flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens a number of streams and sends an invalid request over each stream that should solicit a stream of RST_STREAM frames from the peer. Depending on how the peer queues the RST_STREAM frames, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a flood of empty frames, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of frames with an empty payload and without the end-of-stream flag. These frames can be DATA, HEADERS, CONTINUATION and/or PUSH_PROMISE. The peer spends time processing each frame disproportionate to attack bandwidth. This can consume excess CPU.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to unconstrained interal data buffering, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens the HTTP/2 window so the peer can send without constraint; however, they leave the TCP window closed so the peer cannot actually write (many of) the bytes on the wire. The attacker then sends a stream of requests for a large response object. Depending on how the servers queue the responses, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both.

In SwiftNIO before 1.8.0, a buffer overflow was addressed with improved size validation.

An issue was discovered in certain Apple products. Swift before 4.1.1 Security Update 2018-001 is affected. The issue involves the "Swift for Ubuntu" component. It allows attackers to execute arbitrary code in a privileged context because write and execute permissions are enabled during library loading.

puppet-swift before versions 8.2.1, 9.4.4 is vulnerable to an information-disclosure in Red Hat OpenStack Platform director's installation of Object Storage (swift). During installation, the Puppet script responsible for deploying the service incorrectly removes and recreates the proxy-server.conf file with world-readable permissions.

An issue was discovered in middleware.py in OpenStack Swauth through 1.2.0 when used with OpenStack Swift through 2.15.1. The Swift object store and proxy server are saving (unhashed) tokens retrieved from the Swauth middleware authentication mechanism to a log file as part of a GET URI. This allows attackers to bypass authentication by inserting a token into an X-Auth-Token header of a new request. NOTE: github.com/openstack/swauth URLs do not mean that Swauth is maintained by an official OpenStack project team.

The mail transport (aka Swift_Transport_MailTransport) in Swift Mailer before 5.4.5 might allow remote attackers to pass extra parameters to the mail command and consequently execute arbitrary code via a \" (backslash double quote) in a crafted e-mail address in the (1) From, (2) ReturnPath, or (3) Sender header.