By Null Ventures MCP platform
Menu

vulnerability / NVI-00011713 / Revision 1

Sliver: Unauthenticated Memory Exhaustion Denial of Service in Sliver HTTP(S) Listener PNG Decoder

GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for github.com/BishopFox/sliver. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.

source listedactiveGHSA-663m-7x7m-g4fwCVE-2026-77622

This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.

01 / Meaning

Why it matters

Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.

02 / Applicability

The affected context

Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.

github.com/BishopFox/sliver

source listed
  • < 1.7.6

### Summary Sliver is vulnerable to a Denial of Service (DOS) attack because there is no cap in the size of a PNG file that can be sent to an open http listener and there is a small amount of possible nonces. This vulnerability lets the attacker completely max out the RAM of the machine running server, leading to a complete loss of availability. ### Details The first vulnerability is that the amount of possible nonces is 65,537. This is found in `server/encoders/encoders.go` ```go const ( EncoderModulus = uint64(65537) ) ``` The second vulnerability is there is no limit to how many pixels the PNG encoder will accept from an unauthenticated user. This is found in: `util/encoders/images.go` ```go func (p PNGEncoder) Encode(data []byte) ([]byte, error) { img := imageFromBytes(data) var buf bytes.Buffer encoder.Encode(&buf, img) return buf.Bytes(), nil } func (p PNGEncoder) Decode(data []byte) ([]byte, error) { buf := bytes.NewBuffer(data) img, err := png.Decode(buf) if err != nil { return nil, err } return bytesFromImage(img), nil } ``` ### PoC The first step to reproduce this vulnerability is building a docker container to make sure no harm i

GitHub Advisory Database

03 / Response

What to do next

  1. investigate

    Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.

    Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. GitHub Advisory Database

A fixed release is not deployment evidence.

Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.

04 / Limits

What this report cannot establish

  • Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
Read the collection and interpretation limits ↗

05 / Provenance

Sources you can inspect

Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.

  1. GHSA-663m-7x7m-g4fw ↗

    GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory

    Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.

Public revision history

Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.

  1. Revision 1 ·

    First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.

Read the public revision data ↗

The next step is private

Bring the question into your environment.

The connected workflow is a development preview for inventory, contextual matching, owner decisions and evidence-based verification. No system-specific result is generated by this page.

See the synthetic workflow preview ↗