A flaw was found in jboss-remoting in versions before 5.0.20.SP1-redhat-00001. A malicious attacker could cause threads to hold up forever in the EJB server by writing a sequence of bytes corresponding to the expected messages of a successful EJB client request, but omitting the ACK messages, or just tamper with jboss-remoting code, deleting the lines that send the ACK message from the EJB client code resulting in a denial of service. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to system availability.

A flaw was found in Undertow when using Remoting as shipped in Red Hat Jboss EAP before version 7.2.4. A memory leak in HttpOpenListener due to holding remote connections indefinitely may lead to denial of service. Versions before undertow 2.0.25.SP1 and jboss-remoting 5.0.14.SP1 are believed to be vulnerable.

A vulnerability was found in the way RemoteMessageChannel, introduced in jboss-remoting versions 3.3.10, reads from an empty buffer. An attacker could use this flaw to cause denial of service via high CPU caused by an infinite loop.

The org.jboss.remoting.transport.bisocket.BisocketServerInvoker$SecondaryServerSocketThread.run method in JBoss Remoting 2.2.x before 2.2.3.SP4 and 2.5.x before 2.5.3.SP2 in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBoss EAP or JBEAP) 4.3 through 4.3.0.CP09, and 5.1.0; and JBoss Enterprise Web Platform (aka JBEWP) 5.1.0; allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon outage) by establishing a bisocket control connection TCP session, and then not sending any application data.

The org.jboss.remoting.transport.bisocket.BisocketServerInvoker$SecondaryServerSocketThread.run method in JBoss Remoting 2.2.x before 2.2.3.SP4 and 2.5.x before 2.5.3.SP2 in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBoss EAP or JBEAP) 4.3 through 4.3.0.CP09 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon outage) by establishing a bisocket control connection TCP session, and then not sending any application data, related to a missing CVE-2010-3862 patch. NOTE: this can be considered a duplicate of CVE-2010-3862 because a missing patch should not be assigned a separate CVE identifier.