Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:LSummary
CVE-2026-30961 is a medium-severity Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) vulnerability in Forceu Gokapi. Its CVSS base score is 4.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 17th 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 AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-12080
Vulnerability Data
Gokapi is a self-hosted file sharing server with automatic expiration and encryption support. Prior to 2.2.4, the chunked upload completion path for file requests does not validate the total file size against the per-request MaxSize limit. An attacker with a…
more
public file request link can split an oversized file into chunks each under MaxSize and upload them sequentially, bypassing the size restriction entirely. Files up to the server's global MaxFileSizeMB are accepted regardless of the file request's configured limit. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.2.4.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Bypass of upload size limits on a public file-request endpoint directly enables exploitation of a public-facing application (T1190).
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces validation of total file size (not per-chunk) against the request-specific MaxSize limit before accepting the upload.
Enforces the configured per-request file-size policy on the chunked-upload completion path, blocking bypass via sequential chunking.
Monitors upload behavior and sizes to identify attempts that exceed the intended MaxSize limit on file-request links.
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.