Oracle Communications Automated Test Suite (Eclipse Jetty) CVEs
4 CVEs, 1 exploited
Overview 4 matches · 0 protected · 1 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 1 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
Protected by Waratek
0
0.0%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
1
25.0%
No exploit published
3
75.0%
blocked by ARMR today
0
0.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
4
100.0%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
1
25.0%
Working exploit published
0
0.0%
Proof of concept only
0
0.0%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
3
75.0%
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-59476 | Medium | 2025-09-17 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Jenkins 2.527 and earlier, LTS 2.516.2 and earlier does not restrict or transform the characters that can be inserted from user-specified content in log messages, allowing attackers able to control log message contents to insert line break characters, followed by forged log messages that may mislead administrators reviewing log output. |
| CVE-2025-59475 | Medium | 2025-09-17 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Jenkins 2.527 and earlier, LTS 2.516.2 and earlier does not perform a permission check for the authenticated user profile dropdown menu, allowing attackers without Overall/Read permission to obtain limited information about the Jenkins configuration by listing available options in this menu (e.g., whether Credentials Plugin is installed). |
| CVE-2025-59474 | Medium | 2025-09-17 | Mitigation candidate | Exploited | Jenkins 2.527 and earlier, LTS 2.516.2 and earlier does not perform a permission check in the sidepanel of a page intentionally accessible to users lacking Overall/Read permission, allowing attackers without Overall/Read permission to list agent names through its sidepanel executors widget. |
| CVE-2025-5115 | High | 2025-08-20 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Eclipse Jetty, versions <=9.4.57, <=10.0.25, <=11.0.25, <=12.0.21, <=12.1.0.alpha2, an HTTP/2 client may trigger the server to send RST_STREAM frames, for example by sending frames that are malformed or that should not be sent in a particular stream state, therefore forcing the server to consume resources such as CPU and memory. For example, a client can open a stream and then send WINDOW_UPDATE frames with window size increment of 0, which is illegal. Per specification https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9113.html#name-window_update , the server should send a RST_STREAM frame. The client can now open another stream and send another bad WINDOW_UPDATE, therefore causing the server to consume more resources than necessary, as this case does not exceed the max number of concurrent streams, yet the client is able to create an enormous amount of streams in a short period of time. The attack can be performed with other conditions (for example, a DATA frame for a closed stream) that cause the server to send a RST_STREAM frame. Links: * https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/security/advisories/GHSA-mmxm-8w33-wc4h |