Medium Oracle Communications Core (Eclipse Jetty) CVEs
4 CVEs
Overview 4 matches · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
4matches
0protected0.0%
0exploited0.0%
0CISA KEV0.0%
0public PoC0.0%
0EPSS ≥ 0.50.0%
Protected by Waratek
0
0.0%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
4
100.0%
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
0
0.0%
Working exploit published
0
0.0%
Proof of concept only
0
0.0%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
4
100.0%
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-6790 | Medium | 2026-07-14 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Eclipse Jetty, for HTTP/1, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 requests, there is no strict check that the request authority (host and port) matches what provided in the Host header (if present). This was not enforced in earlier HTTP RFC (for example, in RFC 2616), but it is in the latest RFC (9110 and 9112). This mismatch can cause a number of problems that may be classified as vulnerabilities such as: * URI constructions (for example, for redirects -- this is typical for login pages) * Virtual host selection * Reverse proxying * Misleading logs * Etc. Given that the latest RFCs require that request authority and Host header must match, Jetty should enforce this invariant. |
| CVE-2026-10051 | Medium | 2026-07-14 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Eclipse Jetty, a first HTTP/1.1 request with trailers causes the server to retain the trailers in subsequent requests performed over the same connection. Subsequent request that do not have trailers report the trailers of the first request. Subsequent request that do have trailers report the union of trailers of the first request and the current request. |
| CVE-2023-26049 | Medium | 2023-04-18 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Jetty is a java based web server and servlet engine. Nonstandard cookie parsing in Jetty may allow an attacker to smuggle cookies within other cookies, or otherwise perform unintended behavior by tampering with the cookie parsing mechanism. If Jetty sees a cookie VALUE that starts with `"` (double quote), it will continue to read the cookie string until it sees a closing quote -- even if a semicolon is encountered. So, a cookie header such as: `DISPLAY_LANGUAGE="b; JSESSIONID=1337; c=d"` will be parsed as one cookie, with the name DISPLAY_LANGUAGE and a value of b; JSESSIONID=1337; c=d instead of 3 separate cookies. This has security implications because if, say, JSESSIONID is an HttpOnly cookie, and the DISPLAY_LANGUAGE cookie value is rendered on the page, an attacker can smuggle the JSESSIONID cookie into the DISPLAY_LANGUAGE cookie and thereby exfiltrate it. This is significant when an intermediary is enacting some policy based on cookies, so a smuggled cookie can bypass that policy yet still be seen by the Jetty server or its logging system. This issue has been addressed in versions 9.4.51, 10.0.14, 11.0.14, and 12.0.0.beta0 and users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this issue. |
| CVE-2023-26048 | Medium | 2023-04-18 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Jetty is a java based web server and servlet engine. In affected versions servlets with multipart support (e.g. annotated with `@MultipartConfig`) that call `HttpServletRequest.getParameter()` or `HttpServletRequest.getParts()` may cause `OutOfMemoryError` when the client sends a multipart request with a part that has a name but no filename and very large content. This happens even with the default settings of `fileSizeThreshold=0` which should stream the whole part content to disk. An attacker client may send a large multipart request and cause the server to throw `OutOfMemoryError`. However, the server may be able to recover after the `OutOfMemoryError` and continue its service -- although it may take some time. This issue has been patched in versions 9.4.51, 10.0.14, and 11.0.14. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade may set the multipart parameter `maxRequestSize` which must be set to a non-negative value, so the whole multipart content is limited (although still read into memory). |