Skip to content

RabbitMQ Java client malformed body frame triggers raw command assembler exception

Moderate
ansd published GHSA-qx7j-jv8m-fppr Jul 9, 2026

Package

maven com.rabbitmq:amqp-client (Maven)

Affected versions

<= 5.30.0

Patched versions

5.31.0

Description

Summary

RabbitMQ Java Client's inbound AMQP command assembly accepts a content header declaring a small body and then processes a larger body frame by throwing a raw UnsupportedOperationException from CommandAssembler. A broker peer that the client has connected to can use this malformed frame sequence to fail frame processing and tear down the client connection instead of receiving a clean protocol-level malformed-frame error.

This was discovered based on a existing vulnerability CVE-2017-15699. However, the crash site code doesn't seem to be fully implemented yet, so I would like to know if it is just a code that would be fixed.

Details

Inbound frames enter the client through SocketFrameHandler.readFrame, which returns frames parsed from the peer-controlled input stream (src/main/java/com/rabbitmq/client/impl/SocketFrameHandler.java:197). AMQConnection.MainLoop reads each frame (src/main/java/com/rabbitmq/client/impl/AMQConnection.java:692) and dispatches non-zero-channel frames to the channel while the connection is open (src/main/java/com/rabbitmq/client/impl/AMQConnection.java:748 and src/main/java/com/rabbitmq/client/impl/AMQConnection.java:766). The channel then passes the frame to the current command assembler through AMQChannel.handleFrame and AMQCommand.handleFrame (src/main/java/com/rabbitmq/client/impl/AMQChannel.java:121, src/main/java/com/rabbitmq/client/impl/AMQCommand.java:114). When a content-bearing method is followed by a content header, CommandAssembler.consumeHeaderFrame records the header's declared body size in remainingBodyBytes after only checking it against the configured maximum (src/main/java/com/rabbitmq/client/impl/CommandAssembler.java:126 through src/main/java/com/rabbitmq/client/impl/CommandAssembler.java:139). The body-frame path subtracts the received payload length from that remaining count before validating that the payload fits (src/main/java/com/rabbitmq/client/impl/CommandAssembler.java:145 through src/main/java/com/rabbitmq/client/impl/CommandAssembler.java:149), so a body frame larger than the declared size drives the count negative and reaches the raw UnsupportedOperationException at src/main/java/com/rabbitmq/client/impl/CommandAssembler.java:150 and src/main/java/com/rabbitmq/client/impl/CommandAssembler.java:151. AMQConnection catches the resulting throwable in frame processing and performs connection failure handling and final shutdown (src/main/java/com/rabbitmq/client/impl/AMQConnection.java:695 through src/main/java/com/rabbitmq/client/impl/AMQConnection.java:705).

PoC

poc.zip

bash ./poc/run.sh
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: %%%%%% FIXME unimplemented

The UnsupportedOperationException: %%%%%% FIXME unimplemented fingerprint is the raw exception thrown at the negative remainingBodyBytes check in CommandAssembler.consumeBodyFrame. This line shows the malformed declared-size/body-size sequence reached the vulnerable assembler path.

Impact

The attacker model is a remote AMQP broker peer that the RabbitMQ Java Client application has accepted, including a malicious broker endpoint, a compromised broker, or routing that sends the client to an attacker-controlled peer. The peer needs a non-zero open channel that can receive a content-bearing server-to-client method such as basic.deliver, then sends the method frame, a content header declaring a body below the configured maximum, and a body frame whose payload exceeds that declared size. Under those conditions, the peer can force frame processing to fail with UnsupportedOperationException and close the AMQP connection, producing a client-side denial of service for work depending on that connection; the finding does not indicate memory corruption, data disclosure, or code execution.

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability High

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H

CVE ID

CVE-2026-63335

Weaknesses

Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly. Learn more on MITRE.

Credits