CVE-2026-67220

RabbitMQ: JMS topic exchange erl_scan atom exhaustion

MEDIUM
6.5
CVSS Score
Published: September 23, 2026 at 08:06 PM UTC
Updated: October 19, 2026 at 08:38 PM UTC
2 products affected across 2 vendorsRabbitmq ServerRabbitmq Server

Using rabbitmq-server by rabbitmq?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect rabbitmq-server - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
MEDIUM6.5
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.3%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. Prior to versions 3.13.15, 4.0.20, 4.1.11, 4.2.6, 4.3.0, When a binding is created on an x-jms-topic exchange, add_binding/3 reads the rjms_erlang_selector argument and passes it through erl_scan:string/1 then erl_parse:parse_term/1. erl_scan:string/1 interns every atom literal it tokenizes. validate_binding/2 is a no-op (-> ok.), there is no length cap, and the surrounding try/catch cannot reclaim atoms. The Java JMS client compiles selectors client-side, but the server does not enforce this , a raw AMQP client can send arbitrary selector strings. An authenticated low-privilege AMQP user confined to one vhost can crash the entire broker node (cross-tenant DoS) in <100 bind calls. Preconditions include rabbitmq_jms_topic_exchange plugin enabled (bundled; required for any JMS deployment) Authenticated AMQP user with read on an x-jms-topic exchange + write on a queue (or configure to declare both). This issue is fixed in versions 3.13.15, 4.0.20, 4.1.11, 4.2.6, 4.3.0.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

3.13.0 ≤ v < 3.13.154.0.0 ≤ v < 4.0.204.1.0 ≤ v < 4.1.114.2.0 ≤ v < 4.2.6
Affected range stops below 3.13.15, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 4.0.20, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 4.1.11, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 4.2.6, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet. What the record does show:

References (2)

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

Attack Vector
NETWORK
Complexity
LOW
Privileges
LOW
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
NONE
Integrity
NONE
Availability
HIGH
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusANALYZED
CWE
CWE-400

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card