Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-46556 is a medium-severity Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) vulnerability in Mantisbt Mantisbt. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 30th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and AU-4 (Audit Log Storage Capacity) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-37509
Vulnerability Data
Mantis Bug Tracker (MantisBT) is an open source issue tracker. Versions 2.27.1 and below allow attackers to permanently corrupt issue activity logs by submitting extremely long notes (tested with 4,788,761 characters) due to a lack of server-side validation of note…
more
length. Once such a note is added, the activity stream UI fails to render; therefore, new notes cannot be displayed, effectively breaking all future collaboration on the issue. This issue is fixed in version 2.27.2.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires server-side validation of input size to reject oversized notes before they corrupt activity logs.
Mandates allocation of sufficient audit log storage capacity so that large note entries cannot exhaust or corrupt the activity stream.
Requires protection of resource availability to stop a single oversized input from rendering the issue activity UI unusable.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Monitoring capacity and taking action to maintain availability directly reduces unchecked resource allocation.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Baseline comparison of CPU, memory and bandwidth usage helps surface uncontrolled resource allocations before they cause service degradation.
Capacity projections and elasticity measures ensure that allocation requests are bounded and can be throttled, reducing the window in which an attacker can force unbounded resource reservations.
Defining retention periods and deletion schedules for backup copies prevents indefinite accumulation of data on storage media without corresponding resource-management controls.
Architectural redundancy and automatic failover limit the impact of an attacker who forces excessive allocations, because spare capacity can absorb the load until the primary instance recovers.
Documented incident response procedures that include activation of continuity plans and controlled recovery help ensure that resource consumption triggered by an incident is bounded and managed rather than left unbounded.
Mandating tested continuity procedures that preserve or replace resource-limiting controls prevents an attacker from exploiting the absence of throttling mechanisms during an outage.