Security1 publisher3 min readPublished
CDN Tsunami: the protocol translation you pay for is the amplifier
Two disclosed DoS techniques turn HTTP/3-to-HTTP/1.1 conversion at six major CDNs into up to 350x load on the origin, with no configuration change by the customer.
The Watch · Security desk
Drafted by a language model from the sources cited here and checked against its claim ledger before publication. How we use AISend a correction

What happened
- Researchers disclosed two denial-of-service attacks, collectively named CDN Tsunami, that exploit how major CDNs convert client-facing HTTP/3 traffic into HTTP/1.1 requests to the sites they front, amplifying a low-bandwidth request stream by up to 350x against the origin server.
- The researchers say every mitigation they propose is applied at the CDN rather than at the origin website.
- The attacks were evaluated against Alibaba, Baidu, Cloudflare, Amazon CloudFront, Fastly and Tencent.
- All six CDNs were found susceptible to the bandwidth variant and five to the connection variant, with Cloudflare unaffected by the latter because it buffers the complete request before opening a connection to the origin.
- Both techniques rest on the same deployment gap, in which a CDN speaks HTTP/3 to the browser but only HTTP/1.1 to the website behind it, a mismatch the team said exists because "CDNs do not support end-to-end HTTP/3."
Compiled by The WatchSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
Researchers have disclosed two denial-of-service techniques, collectively named CDN Tsunami, that abuse how major content delivery networks convert client-facing HTTP/3 traffic into HTTP/1.1 requests for the sites behind them, amplifying a low-bandwidth request stream by up to 350x against the origin [1]. The amplifier is the translation service the customer is buying, and the researchers say every mitigation they propose is applied at the CDN rather than at the origin website [2].
The work was evaluated against Alibaba, Baidu, Cloudflare, Amazon CloudFront, Fastly and Tencent [3]. All six were susceptible to the bandwidth variant; five were susceptible to the connection variant, with Cloudflare unaffected there because it buffers the complete request before opening a connection to the origin [4]. Both techniques rest on the same gap: the CDN speaks HTTP/3 to the browser but only HTTP/1.1 to the origin, a mismatch the team attributes to the fact that "CDNs do not support end-to-end HTTP/3" [5].
HTTP/3 Bandwidth Amplification (HBA) uses QPACK header compression. HTTP/1.1 has no equivalent, so the CDN expands each small index value back into a full raw header before forwarding, and a request costing the attacker a few bytes costs the origin the decompressed size [6]. Attacker-side bandwidth stayed below 500 Kbps against the three CDNs supporting the QPACK dynamic table and below 5 Mbps against the rest, while measured origin consumption exceeded 100 Mbps throughout [7] - a ratio on the wire of better than 200 to 1 in the first case [8]. Static-table maxima were Baidu 66.06x, Alibaba 65.8x, Tencent 54.08x, CloudFront 51.2x, Cloudflare 48.27x and Fastly 36.41x [9]. The 350x headline figure applies only to Alibaba, Baidu and Tencent, the three that support the dynamic table, measured at roughly 64 concurrent streams [10]; each advertises a 4KB table with a 3,072-byte maximum entry [11].
HTTP/3 Connection Amplification (HCA) goes after connection capacity. Five of the six CDNs open a backend HTTP/1.1 connection as soon as the HTTP/3 HEADERS frame arrives, before the body, and each multiplexed stream triggers its own backend TCP connection; slow DATA frames then hold those connections open as incomplete [12]. Against an Apache origin with a 300-second timeout and a 256-connection limit, four HTTP/3 connections of 96 streams each forced 384 backend connections [13], about 1.5 times the configured ceiling [14]. Fastly needed 48 connections of 8 streams because it caps backend connections at 10 per HTTP/3 connection [15] - the same 384 streams by another route [16]. Benign client response times reached 60 seconds on Alibaba and up to 90 seconds on Baidu and CloudFront, both returning 504 [17]; Fastly rose to 15 seconds with a 503 [18], and Tencent closed the client connection after roughly 10 seconds with no response [19].
Scope matters. No CVEs have been assigned and no in-the-wild exploitation is reported [20]. The experiments were self-bounded, with the origin capped at 100 Mbps and the attacker at 30 Mbps [21]. The precondition is a site on one of the six providers with HTTP/3 at the edge and no configuration change by the site [22]. The paper lists HTTP/3 as on by default at Cloudflare and CloudFront [23], but Cloudflare's documentation describes it as available on all plans with steps to enable it [24], and AWS documentation gives http2 as the default for new CloudFront distributions [25]. Check what your own edge is actually negotiating rather than trusting the default.
Watch which providers ship. Baidu and Tencent confirmed the reports and deployed the proposed fixes [26]; that leaves the other four in the tested set without confirmed fixes [27]. Watch also for any move toward end-to-end HTTP/3 to the origin, which would close the gap rather than patch it [5], and for CVE assignment, which is what most vulnerability management pipelines actually key on [20].