Overview 5 matches · 3 in Waratek scope · 2 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 1 public PoC · 2 EPSS ≥ 0.5
5matches
3in Waratek scope60.0%
2protected40.0%
0exploited0.0%
0CISA KEV0.0%
1public PoC20.0%
2EPSS ≥ 0.540.0%
Protected by Waratek
2
40.0%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
1
20.0%
Outside Waratek scope
2
40.0%
Not applicable
0
0.0%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
2
40.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
3
60.0%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
0
0.0%
Working exploit published
0
0.0%
Proof of concept only
1
20.0%
Forecast only
1
20.0%
No public exploit
3
60.0%
split by
peak 1 / quarter
Q2 181
Protected by Waratek1
Critical1
blocked by ARMR today1
Forecast only1
Q3 180
Q4 181
Outside Waratek scope1
High1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
Q1 190
Q2 190
Q3 190
Q4 190
Q1 201
Outside Waratek scope1
High1
not blocked1
Proof of concept only1
Q2 200
Q3 201
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
Q4 200
Q1 210
Q2 211
Protected by Waratek1
High1
blocked by ARMR today1
No public exploit1
Q2 18Q4 18Q2 19Q4 19Q2 20Q4 20Q2 21
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2021-22118 | High | 2021-05-27 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | In Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.15 and versions 5.3.x prior to 5.3.7, a WebFlux application is vulnerable to a privilege escalation: by (re)creating the temporary storage directory, a locally authenticated malicious user can read or modify files that have been uploaded to the WebFlux application, or overwrite arbitrary files with multipart request data. |
| CVE-2020-5421 | Medium | 2020-09-19 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Spring Framework versions 5.2.0 - 5.2.8, 5.1.0 - 5.1.17, 5.0.0 - 5.0.18, 4.3.0 - 4.3.28, and older unsupported versions, the protections against RFD attacks from CVE-2015-5211 may be bypassed depending on the browser used through the use of a jsessionid path parameter. |
| CVE-2020-5398 | High | 2020-01-17 | Outside Waratek scope | Proof of concept only | In Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.3, versions 5.1.x prior to 5.1.13, and versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.16, an application is vulnerable to a reflected file download (RFD) attack when it sets a "Content-Disposition" header in the response where the filename attribute is derived from user supplied input. |
| 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-2018-1275 | Critical | 2018-04-11 | Protected by Waratek | Forecast only | Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.16 and older unsupported versions, allow applications to expose STOMP over WebSocket endpoints with a simple, in-memory STOMP broker through the spring-messaging module. A malicious user (or attacker) can craft a message to the broker that can lead to a remote code execution attack. This CVE addresses the partial fix for CVE-2018-1270 in the 4.3.x branch of the Spring Framework. |