Skip to content

mint: Unbounded CONTINUATION/HEADERS frame accumulation (CONTINUATION flood)

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 2, 2026 in elixir-mint/mint • Updated Jul 9, 2026

Package

erlang mint (Erlang)

Affected versions

< 1.9.0

Patched versions

1.9.0

Description

Summary

Mint's HTTP/2 client accumulates CONTINUATION header-block fragments into a per-connection buffer with no cap on size or frame count. A malicious or compromised HTTP/2 server can drive the client's memory to arbitrary size by streaming an endless chain of CONTINUATION frames after a HEADERS frame that omits END_HEADERS, causing memory exhaustion and BEAM process death. A single connection to an attacker-controlled HTTP/2 endpoint is sufficient.

Details

When Mint's HTTP/2 receive path observes a HEADERS frame without the END_HEADERS flag, 'Elixir.Mint.HTTP2':handle_headers/3 parks the unparsed header-block fragment in conn.headers_being_processed. Every subsequent CONTINUATION frame on that stream is then appended to the accumulator by 'Elixir.Mint.HTTP2':handle_continuation/3.

Nothing in the receive path bounds this accumulator: there is no per-stream size cap, no CONTINUATION frame-count cap, and max_header_list_size is only enforced on outgoing requests (its default is :infinity, and the only enforcement helper inspects server_settings for request encoding, never inbound header blocks). Each CONTINUATION payload can be up to the peer-advertised SETTINGS_MAX_FRAME_SIZE, so the attacker can grow headers_being_processed to arbitrary size at line rate.

PoC

  1. Stand up a raw TCP server that speaks the HTTP/2 handshake.
  2. After the client's request HEADERS arrives, respond with a HEADERS frame on stream 1 with flags = 0 (no END_HEADERS, no END_STREAM) and an empty header-block fragment.
  3. Stream CONTINUATION frames on stream 1, each with flags = 0 and a payload up to SETTINGS_MAX_FRAME_SIZE. Never set END_HEADERS.
  4. The client's process memory grows linearly with the flood and the BEAM process eventually crashes with OOM.

Impact

Remote, unauthenticated denial-of-service against any process using Mint as an HTTP/2 client against an untrusted or attacker-influenced server. A single connection is sufficient to drive memory to arbitrary size and crash the BEAM process. The default Mint configuration is vulnerable; no client-side opt-in is required. Scored CVSS v4.0 8.2 (HIGH).

Workarounds

Restrict Mint to HTTP/1 on connections to untrusted servers by passing protocols: [:http1] to 'Elixir.Mint.HTTP':connect/4. This avoids the vulnerable HTTP/2 receive path entirely, at the cost of losing HTTP/2 for those connections.

Resources

References

@ericmj ericmj published to elixir-mint/mint Jun 2, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jun 2, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 9, 2026
Reviewed Jul 9, 2026
Last updated Jul 9, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(30th percentile)

Weaknesses

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-49754

GHSA ID

GHSA-2p26-p43x-fhp8

Source code

Credits

Dependabot alerts are not supported on some or all of the ecosystems on this advisory.

Learn more about GitHub language support

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.