Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-57220 is a high-severity Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) vulnerability in Broadcom Rabbitmq Server. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Resource Hijacking (T1496); ranked at the 43th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SC-7 (Boundary Protection) and SC-6 (Resource Availability) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-43018
Vulnerability Data
RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. Prior to 4.2.6, the RabbitMQ stream listener does not enforce the configured stream frame-size limit while assembling frames during authentication and before Tune negotiation, allowing an unauthenticated remote client to declare oversized frame…
more
lengths and consume broker memory in rabbit_stream_core. This issue is fixed in version 4.2.6.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
The vulnerability allows unauthenticated remote attackers to trigger excessive memory consumption in the RabbitMQ stream listener by sending oversized frame lengths before authentication completes. This directly enables resource exhaustion (T1496) and can be leveraged for an endpoint denial-of-service via application exploitation (T1499.004).
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Boundary protection at the stream listener can reject or rate-limit unauthenticated oversized frames before they reach rabbit_stream_core, directly blocking the memory-exhaustion vector.
Resource-availability controls limit the amount of memory a single unauthenticated connection can allocate, mitigating the impact of an oversized-frame DoS.
Input-validation on the declared frame length during the pre-Tune phase can reject values exceeding the configured limit before memory is allocated.
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.