Overview 4 matches · 2 in Waratek scope · 1 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 2 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
4matches
2in Waratek scope50.0%
1protected25.0%
0exploited0.0%
0CISA KEV0.0%
2public PoC50.0%
0EPSS ≥ 0.50.0%
Protected by Waratek
1
25.0%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
1
25.0%
Outside Waratek scope
1
25.0%
Not applicable
1
25.0%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
1
25.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
3
75.0%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
0
0.0%
Working exploit published
0
0.0%
Proof of concept only
2
50.0%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
2
50.0%
split by
peak 1 / year
20171
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20181
Outside Waratek scope1
High1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20190
20201
Protected by Waratek1
Critical1
blocked by ARMR today1
Proof of concept only1
20210
20220
20230
20241
Not applicable1
High1
not blocked1
Proof of concept only1
20172018201920202021202220232024
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-22243 | High | 2024-02-23 | Not applicable | Proof of concept only | Applications that use UriComponentsBuilder to parse an externally provided URL (e.g. through a query parameter) AND perform validation checks on the host of the parsed URL may be vulnerable to a open redirect https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/601.html attack or to a SSRF attack if the URL is used after passing validation checks. |
| CVE-2016-1000027 | Critical | 2020-01-02 | Protected by Waratek | Proof of concept only | Pivotal Spring Framework through 5.3.16 suffers from a potential remote code execution (RCE) issue if used for Java deserialization of untrusted data. Depending on how the library is implemented within a product, this issue may or not occur, and authentication may be required. NOTE: the vendor's position is that untrusted data is not an intended use case. The product's behavior will not be changed because some users rely on deserialization of trusted data. |
| CVE-2018-15756 | High | 2018-10-18 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | Spring Framework, version 5.1, versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.10, versions 4.3.x prior to 4.3.20, and older unsupported versions on the 4.2.x branch provide support for range requests when serving static resources through the ResourceHttpRequestHandler, or starting in 5.0 when an annotated controller returns an org.springframework.core.io.Resource. A malicious user (or attacker) can add a range header with a high number of ranges, or with wide ranges that overlap, or both, for a denial of service attack. This vulnerability affects applications that depend on either spring-webmvc or spring-webflux. Such applications must also have a registration for serving static resources (e.g. JS, CSS, images, and others), or have an annotated controller that returns an org.springframework.core.io.Resource. Spring Boot applications that depend on spring-boot-starter-web or spring-boot-starter-webflux are ready to serve static resources out of the box and are therefore vulnerable. |
| CVE-2016-5007 | High | 2017-05-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Both Spring Security 3.2.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.0 and the Spring Framework 3.2.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.x, 4.2.x rely on URL pattern mappings for authorization and for mapping requests to controllers respectively. Differences in the strictness of the pattern matching mechanisms, for example with regards to space trimming in path segments, can lead Spring Security to not recognize certain paths as not protected that are in fact mapped to Spring MVC controllers that should be protected. The problem is compounded by the fact that the Spring Framework provides richer features with regards to pattern matching as well as by the fact that pattern matching in each Spring Security and the Spring Framework can easily be customized creating additional differences. |