vulnerability / NVI-00017627 / Revision 1
CredSweeper: Recursive archive size-limit bypass in deep scanner allows crafted compressed inputs to exhaust resources
GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for credsweeper. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.
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.
5.5 medium
GitHub source severity; exploitability and local consequence require separate evidence.
As of · GitHub Advisory Database
02 / Applicability
The affected context
Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.
credsweeper
source listed>= 1.4.9, < 1.16.0
### Summary CredSweeper's deep scanner does not enforce `recursive_limit_size` as a hard limit. Several recursive scanners fully decompress or fully read attacker-controlled content before the remaining budget is validated, and `AbstractScanner.recursive_scan()` continues processing even when the residual budget is already negative. This allows a crafted archive to bypass the intended recursive zip-bomb protection and force excessive memory / CPU consumption when deep scanning is enabled (`--depth > 0`). I confirmed this on upstream commit `8b081acf04311eafe8fbd66ea41d02b0a7a4c6f6` / package version `1.15.8`. The issue has two closely related exploitation paths that share the same root cause: 1. Single-stream decompressor bypass: `gzip`, `bzip2`, and `lzma/xz` inputs are fully decompressed first, then the remaining budget is computed, and the recursive scan proceeds even if the result is negative. 2. Multi-entry archive cumulative-budget bypass: `zip` and `tar` entries are checked only against the original per-entry budget, not against a mutable cumulative remaining budget shared across sibling entries. Multiple individually small entries can therefore exceed the configur
03 / Response
What to do next
- 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.
05 / Provenance
Sources you can inspect
Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.
- GHSA-9mqm-qcwf-5qhg ↗
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.
- Revision 1 ·
First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.