OOM Denial of Service via Unbounded Array Allocation in Apache OpenNLP AbstractModelReader
Versions Affected:
before 1.9.5
before 2.5.9
before 3.0.0-M3
Description:
The AbstractModelReader methods getOutcomes(), getOutcomePatterns(), and getPredicates() each read a 32-bit signed integer count field from a binary model stream and pass that value directly to an array allocation (new String[numOutcomes], new int[numOCTypes][], new String[NUM_PREDS]) without validating that the value is non-negative or within a reasonable bound. The count is therefore fully attacker-controlled when the model file originates from an untrusted source.
A crafted .bin model file in which any of these count fields is set to Integer.MAX_VALUE (or any value large enough to exhaust the available heap) triggers an OutOfMemoryError at the array allocation itself, before the corresponding label or pattern data is consumed from the stream. The error occurs very early in deserialization: for a GIS model, getOutcomes() is reached after only the model-type string, the correction constant, and the correction parameter have been read; so the attacker pays no meaningful size cost to weaponize a payload, and a single small file can crash a JVM that loads it. Any code path that deserializes a .bin model is affected, including direct use of GenericModelReader and any higher-level component that delegates to it during model load.
The practical impact is denial of service against processes that load model files from untrusted or semi-trusted origins.
Mitigation:
* 2.x users should upgrade to 2.5.9.
* 3.x users should upgrade to 3.0.0-M3.
Note: The fix introduces an upper bound on each of the three count fields, checked before array allocation; counts that are negative or exceed the bound cause an IllegalArgumentException to be thrown and the read to fail fast with no large allocation. The default bound is 10,000,000, which is well above the entry counts of legitimate OpenNLP models but far below any value that would threaten heap exhaustion. Deployments that legitimately need to load models with more entries than the default can raise the limit at JVM startup by setting the OPENNLP_MAX_ENTRIES system property to the desired positive integer (e.g. -DOPENNLP_MAX_ENTRIES=50000000); invalid or non-positive values fall back to the default.
Users who cannot upgrade immediately should treat all .bin model files as untrusted input unless their provenance is verified, and should avoid loading models supplied by end users or fetched from third-party repositories without integrity checks.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1 · CVSS v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-26). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it