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 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.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a header leak, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of headers with a 0-length header name and 0-length header value, optionally Huffman encoded into 1-byte or greater headers. Some implementations allocate memory for these headers and keep the allocation alive until the session dies. This can consume excess memory.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a settings flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of SETTINGS frames to the peer. Since the RFC requires that the peer reply with one acknowledgement per SETTINGS frame, an empty SETTINGS frame is almost equivalent in behavior to a ping. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.

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 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.

A vulnerability was found in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.34 to 2.4.38. When HTTP/2 was enabled for a http: host or H2Upgrade was enabled for h2 on a https: host, an Upgrade request from http/1.1 to http/2 that was not the first request on a connection could lead to a misconfiguration and crash. Server that never enabled the h2 protocol or that only enabled it for https: and did not set "H2Upgrade on" are unaffected by this issue.

In Apache HTTP server versions 2.4.37 and prior, by sending request bodies in a slow loris way to plain resources, the h2 stream for that request unnecessarily occupied a server thread cleaning up that incoming data. This affects only HTTP/2 (mod_http2) connections.

By specially crafting HTTP/2 requests, workers would be allocated 60 seconds longer than necessary, leading to worker exhaustion and a denial of service. Fixed in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.34 (Affected 2.4.18-2.4.30,2.4.33).

In Apache httpd 2.2.0 to 2.4.29, when generating an HTTP Digest authentication challenge, the nonce sent to prevent reply attacks was not correctly generated using a pseudo-random seed. In a cluster of servers using a common Digest authentication configuration, HTTP requests could be replayed across servers by an attacker without detection.

When apr_time_exp*() or apr_os_exp_time*() functions are invoked with an invalid month field value in Apache Portable Runtime APR 1.6.2 and prior, out of bounds memory may be accessed in converting this value to an apr_time_exp_t value, potentially revealing the contents of a different static heap value or resulting in program termination, and may represent an information disclosure or denial of service vulnerability to applications which call these APR functions with unvalidated external input.

Apache HTTP Server, in all releases prior to 2.2.32 and 2.4.25, was liberal in the whitespace accepted from requests and sent in response lines and headers. Accepting these different behaviors represented a security concern when httpd participates in any chain of proxies or interacts with back-end application servers, either through mod_proxy or using conventional CGI mechanisms, and may result in request smuggling, response splitting and cache pollution.

In Apache httpd before 2.2.34 and 2.4.x before 2.4.27, the value placeholder in [Proxy-]Authorization headers of type 'Digest' was not initialized or reset before or between successive key=value assignments by mod_auth_digest. Providing an initial key with no '=' assignment could reflect the stale value of uninitialized pool memory used by the prior request, leading to leakage of potentially confidential information, and a segfault in other cases resulting in denial of service.

In Apache httpd 2.2.x before 2.2.33 and 2.4.x before 2.4.26, use of the ap_get_basic_auth_pw() by third-party modules outside of the authentication phase may lead to authentication requirements being bypassed.

The Apache HTTP Server through 2.4.23 follows RFC 3875 section 4.1.18 and therefore does not protect applications from the presence of untrusted client data in the HTTP_PROXY environment variable, which might allow remote attackers to redirect an application's outbound HTTP traffic to an arbitrary proxy server via a crafted Proxy header in an HTTP request, aka an "httpoxy" issue. NOTE: the vendor states "This mitigation has been assigned the identifier CVE-2016-5387"; in other words, this is not a CVE ID for a vulnerability.