Apache bRPC up to 1.17.x RTMP AMF Parser resource consumption

CVSS Meta Temp Score
CVSS is a standardized scoring system to determine possibilities of attacks. The Temp Score considers temporal factors like disclosure, exploit and countermeasures. The unique Meta Score calculates the average score of different sources to provide a normalized scoring system.
Current Exploit Price (≈)
Our analysts are monitoring exploit markets and are in contact with vulnerability brokers. The range indicates the observed or calculated exploit price to be seen on exploit markets. A good indicator to understand the monetary effort required for and the popularity of an attack.
CTI Interest Score
Our Cyber Threat Intelligence team is monitoring different web sites, mailing lists, exploit markets and social media networks. The CTI Interest Score identifies the interest of attackers and the security community for this specific vulnerability in real-time. A high score indicates an elevated risk to be targeted for this vulnerability.
5.1$0-$5k2.29

Summaryinfo

A vulnerability has been found in Apache bRPC up to 1.17.x and classified as problematic. The affected element is an unknown function of the component RTMP AMF Parser. Performing a manipulation results in resource consumption. This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2026-56387. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available. The affected component should be upgraded.

Detailsinfo

A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in Apache bRPC up to 1.17.x. This affects an unknown part of the component RTMP AMF Parser. The manipulation with an unknown input leads to a resource consumption vulnerability. CWE is classifying the issue as CWE-400. The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource, thereby enabling an actor to influence the amount of resources consumed, eventually leading to the exhaustion of available resources. This is going to have an impact on availability. The summary by CVE is:

The RTMP AMF parser in Apache bRPC accepts AMF string lengths and array counts directly from untrusted input. A remote unauthenticated attacker who can reach a bRPC server with RTMP enabled can send a small AMF payload with an excessive declared long string length or array count, causing excessive memory allocation or resource consumption before the parser rejects the incomplete payload. Root Cause: The AMF long string parser resized the destination string to the declared 32-bit length before validating that the stream contained that many bytes. ECMA array and strict array parsers also accepted 32-bit element counts without a configurable upper bound. Affected Scenarios: Deployments that enable the bRPC RTMP server component and accept RTMP traffic from untrusted clients. Direct uses of the AMF parser on untrusted data are also affected. How to Fix: 1. Upgrade bRPC to version 1.18.0, which fixes this issue. 2. Apply this patch:  https://github.com/apache/brpc/pull/3353 Note: The fix introduces configurable AMF parsing limits. The default maximum string size is 64 MiB and the default maximum array element count is 1,048,576. Payloads above these limits are rejected. The limits can be adjusted with amf_max_string_size and amf_max_array_size.

The advisory is shared at lists.apache.org. This vulnerability is uniquely identified as CVE-2026-56387 since 06/21/2026. The exploitability is told to be easy. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. No form of authentication is needed for exploitation. Neither technical details nor an exploit are publicly available. The price for an exploit might be around USD $0-$5k at the moment (estimation calculated on 10/21/2026). MITRE ATT&CK project uses the attack technique T1499 for this issue.

Upgrading to version 1.18.0 eliminates this vulnerability. Applying the patch pull/3353 is able to eliminate this problem. The best possible mitigation is suggested to be upgrading to the latest version.

If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.

Productinfo

Vendor

Name

Version

License

Website

CPE 2.3info

CPE 2.2info

CVSSv4info

VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍

CVSSv3info

VulDB Meta Base Score: 5.3
VulDB Meta Temp Score: 5.1

VulDB Base Score: 5.3
VulDB Temp Score: 5.1
VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍

CVSSv2info

AVACAuCIA
💳💳💳💳💳💳
💳💳💳💳💳💳
💳💳💳💳💳💳
VectorComplexityAuthenticationConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
UnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock
UnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock
UnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock

VulDB Base Score: 🔒
VulDB Temp Score: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍

Exploitinginfo

Class: Resource consumption
CWE: CWE-400 / CWE-404
CAPEC: 🔒
ATT&CK: 🔒

Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes

Availability: 🔒
Status: Not defined
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔒

0-DayUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock
TodayUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock

Threat Intelligenceinfo

Interest: 🔍
Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍

Countermeasuresinfo

Recommended: Upgrade
Status: 🔍

0-Day Time: 🔒

Upgrade: bRPC 1.18.0
Patch: pull/3353

Timelineinfo

06/21/2026 CVE reserved
10/21/2026 +122 days Advisory disclosed
10/21/2026 +0 days VulDB entry created
10/21/2026 +0 days VulDB entry last update

Sourcesinfo

Vendor: apache.org

Advisory: lists.apache.org
Status: Confirmed

CVE: CVE-2026-56387 (🔒)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2026-56387
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-424749

Entryinfo

Created: 10/21/2026 13:57
Changes: 10/21/2026 13:57 (55)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103

If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.

Discussion

No comments yet. Languages: en.

Please log in to comment.

Want to know what is going to be exploited?

We predict KEV entries!