Overview 22 matches · 4 protected · 2 exploited · 2 CISA KEV · 8 public PoC · 6 EPSS ≥ 0.5
Protected by Waratek
4
18.2%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
6
27.3%
No exploit published
12
54.5%
Outside Waratek scope
0
0.0%
Not applicable
0
0.0%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
4
18.2%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
18
81.8%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
split by
peak 3 / quarter
Q1 202
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published1
Critical1
Medium1
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked1
Exploited1
No public exploit1
Q2 202
Protected by Waratek1
Mitigation candidate1
High2
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked1
Working exploit published1
Proof of concept only1
Q3 201
Mitigation candidate1
High1
not blocked1
Working exploit published1
Q4 201
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
Forecast only1
Q1 213
Protected by Waratek2
No exploit published1
High2
Medium1
blocked by ARMR today2
not blocked1
No public exploit3
Q2 210
Q3 213
No exploit published3
High1
Medium2
not blocked3
Forecast only1
No public exploit2
Q4 210
Q1 220
Q2 221
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
Q3 221
No exploit published1
Low1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
Q4 221
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
Q1 231
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
Q2 230
Q3 231
Mitigation candidate1
Medium1
not blocked1
Proof of concept only1
Q4 233
Mitigation candidate2
No exploit published1
High1
Medium2
not blocked3
Exploited1
Working exploit published1
No public exploit1
Q1 242
Mitigation candidate1
No exploit published1
High1
Medium1
not blocked2
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit1
Q1 20Q3 20Q1 21Q3 21Q1 22Q3 22Q1 23Q3 23Q1 24
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-24549 | High | 2024-03-13 | Mitigation candidate | Proof of concept only | Denial of Service due to improper input validation vulnerability for HTTP/2 requests in Apache Tomcat. When processing an HTTP/2 request, if the request exceeded any of the configured limits for headers, the associated HTTP/2 stream was not reset until after all of the headers had been processed.This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.0-M16, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.18, from 9.0.0-M1 through 9.0.85, from 8.5.0 through 8.5.98. Other, older, EOL versions may also be affected. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.0-M17, 10.1.19, 9.0.86 or 8.5.99 which fix the issue. |
| CVE-2024-23672 | Medium | 2024-03-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Denial of Service via incomplete cleanup vulnerability in Apache Tomcat. It was possible for WebSocket clients to keep WebSocket connections open leading to increased resource consumption.This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.0-M16, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.18, from 9.0.0-M1 through 9.0.85, from 8.5.0 through 8.5.98. Older, EOL versions may also be affected. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.0-M17, 10.1.19, 9.0.86 or 8.5.99 which fix the issue. |
| CVE-2023-45648 | Medium | 2023-10-10 | Mitigation candidate | Working exploit published | Improper Input Validation vulnerability in Apache Tomcat.Tomcat from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.0-M11, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.13, from 9.0.0-M1 through 9.0.81 and from 8.5.0 through 8.5.93 did not correctly parse HTTP trailer headers. A specially crafted, invalid trailer header could cause Tomcat to treat a single request as multiple requests leading to the possibility of request smuggling when behind a reverse proxy. Older, EOL versions may also be affected. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.0-M12 onwards, 10.1.14 onwards, 9.0.81 onwards or 8.5.94 onwards, which fix the issue. |
| CVE-2023-44487 | High | 2023-10-10 | Mitigation candidate | Exploited | The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023. |
| CVE-2023-42795 | Medium | 2023-10-10 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Incomplete Cleanup vulnerability in Apache Tomcat.When recycling various internal objects in Apache Tomcat from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.0-M11, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.13, from 9.0.0-M1 through 9.0.80 and from 8.5.0 through 8.5.93, an error could cause Tomcat to skip some parts of the recycling process leading to information leaking from the current request/response to the next. Older, EOL versions may also be affected. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.0-M12 onwards, 10.1.14 onwards, 9.0.81 onwards or 8.5.94 onwards, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2023-41080 | Medium | 2023-08-25 | Mitigation candidate | Proof of concept only | URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect') vulnerability in FORM authentication feature Apache Tomcat.This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.0-M10, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.0.12, from 9.0.0-M1 through 9.0.79 and from 8.5.0 through 8.5.92. Older, EOL versions may also be affected. The vulnerability is limited to the ROOT (default) web application. |
| CVE-2023-28708 | Medium | 2023-03-22 | No exploit published | No public exploit | When using the RemoteIpFilter with requests received from a reverse proxy via HTTP that include the X-Forwarded-Proto header set to https, session cookies created by Apache Tomcat 11.0.0-M1 to 11.0.0.-M2, 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.5, 9.0.0-M1 to 9.0.71 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.85 did not include the secure attribute. This could result in the user agent transmitting the session cookie over an insecure channel. Older, EOL versions may also be affected. |
| CVE-2022-42252 | High | 2022-11-01 | No exploit published | No public exploit | If Apache Tomcat 8.5.0 to 8.5.82, 9.0.0-M1 to 9.0.67, 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.26 or 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.0 was configured to ignore invalid HTTP headers via setting rejectIllegalHeader to false (the default for 8.5.x only), Tomcat did not reject a request containing an invalid Content-Length header making a request smuggling attack possible if Tomcat was located behind a reverse proxy that also failed to reject the request with the invalid header. |
| CVE-2021-43980 | Low | 2022-09-28 | No exploit published | No public exploit | The simplified implementation of blocking reads and writes introduced in Tomcat 10 and back-ported to Tomcat 9.0.47 onwards exposed a long standing (but extremely hard to trigger) concurrency bug in Apache Tomcat 10.1.0 to 10.1.0-M12, 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.18, 9.0.0-M1 to 9.0.60 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.77 that could cause client connections to share an Http11Processor instance resulting in responses, or part responses, to be received by the wrong client. |
| CVE-2022-25762 | High | 2022-05-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | If a web application sends a WebSocket message concurrently with the WebSocket connection closing when running on Apache Tomcat 8.5.0 to 8.5.75 or Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.20, it is possible that the application will continue to use the socket after it has been closed. The error handling triggered in this case could cause the a pooled object to be placed in the pool twice. This could result in subsequent connections using the same object concurrently which could result in data being returned to the wrong use and/or other errors. |
| CVE-2021-41079 | High | 2021-09-16 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Apache Tomcat 8.5.0 to 8.5.63, 9.0.0-M1 to 9.0.43 and 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.2 did not properly validate incoming TLS packets. When Tomcat was configured to use NIO+OpenSSL or NIO2+OpenSSL for TLS, a specially crafted packet could be used to trigger an infinite loop resulting in a denial of service. |
| CVE-2021-33037 | Medium | 2021-07-12 | No exploit published | Forecast only | Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.6, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.46 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.66 did not correctly parse the HTTP transfer-encoding request header in some circumstances leading to the possibility to request smuggling when used with a reverse proxy. Specifically: - Tomcat incorrectly ignored the transfer encoding header if the client declared it would only accept an HTTP/1.0 response; - Tomcat honoured the identify encoding; and - Tomcat did not ensure that, if present, the chunked encoding was the final encoding. |
| CVE-2021-30640 | Medium | 2021-07-12 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A vulnerability in the JNDI Realm of Apache Tomcat allows an attacker to authenticate using variations of a valid user name and/or to bypass some of the protection provided by the LockOut Realm. This issue affects Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.5; 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.45; 8.5.0 to 8.5.65. |
| CVE-2021-25329 | High | 2021-03-01 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | The fix for CVE-2020-9484 was incomplete. When using Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.41, 8.5.0 to 8.5.61 or 7.0.0. to 7.0.107 with a configuration edge case that was highly unlikely to be used, the Tomcat instance was still vulnerable to CVE-2020-9494. Note that both the previously published prerequisites for CVE-2020-9484 and the previously published mitigations for CVE-2020-9484 also apply to this issue. |
| CVE-2021-25122 | High | 2021-03-01 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | When responding to new h2c connection requests, Apache Tomcat versions 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.41 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.61 could duplicate request headers and a limited amount of request body from one request to another meaning user A and user B could both see the results of user A's request. |
| CVE-2021-24122 | Medium | 2021-01-14 | No exploit published | No public exploit | When serving resources from a network location using the NTFS file system, Apache Tomcat versions 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M9, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.39, 8.5.0 to 8.5.59 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.106 were susceptible to JSP source code disclosure in some configurations. The root cause was the unexpected behaviour of the JRE API File.getCanonicalPath() which in turn was caused by the inconsistent behaviour of the Windows API (FindFirstFileW) in some circumstances. |
| CVE-2020-13943 | Medium | 2020-10-12 | No exploit published | Forecast only | If an HTTP/2 client connecting to Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M7, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.37 or 8.5.0 to 8.5.57 exceeded the agreed maximum number of concurrent streams for a connection (in violation of the HTTP/2 protocol), it was possible that a subsequent request made on that connection could contain HTTP headers - including HTTP/2 pseudo headers - from a previous request rather than the intended headers. This could lead to users seeing responses for unexpected resources. |
| CVE-2020-13935 | High | 2020-07-14 | Mitigation candidate | Working exploit published | The payload length in a WebSocket frame was not correctly validated in Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M6, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.36, 8.5.0 to 8.5.56 and 7.0.27 to 7.0.104. Invalid payload lengths could trigger an infinite loop. Multiple requests with invalid payload lengths could lead to a denial of service. |
| CVE-2020-11996 | High | 2020-06-26 | Mitigation candidate | Proof of concept only | A specially crafted sequence of HTTP/2 requests sent to Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M5, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.35 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.55 could trigger high CPU usage for several seconds. If a sufficient number of such requests were made on concurrent HTTP/2 connections, the server could become unresponsive. |
| CVE-2020-9484 | High | 2020-05-20 | Protected by Waratek | Working exploit published | When using Apache Tomcat versions 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M4, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.34, 8.5.0 to 8.5.54 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.103 if a) an attacker is able to control the contents and name of a file on the server; and b) the server is configured to use the PersistenceManager with a FileStore; and c) the PersistenceManager is configured with sessionAttributeValueClassNameFilter="null" (the default unless a SecurityManager is used) or a sufficiently lax filter to allow the attacker provided object to be deserialized; and d) the attacker knows the relative file path from the storage location used by FileStore to the file the attacker has control over; then, using a specifically crafted request, the attacker will be able to trigger remote code execution via deserialization of the file under their control. Note that all of conditions a) to d) must be true for the attack to succeed. |
| CVE-2020-1938 | Critical | 2020-02-24 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | When using the Apache JServ Protocol (AJP), care must be taken when trusting incoming connections to Apache Tomcat. Tomcat treats AJP connections as having higher trust than, for example, a similar HTTP connection. If such connections are available to an attacker, they can be exploited in ways that may be surprising. In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.30, 8.5.0 to 8.5.50 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.99, Tomcat shipped with an AJP Connector enabled by default that listened on all configured IP addresses. It was expected (and recommended in the security guide) that this Connector would be disabled if not required. This vulnerability report identified a mechanism that allowed: - returning arbitrary files from anywhere in the web application - processing any file in the web application as a JSP Further, if the web application allowed file upload and stored those files within the web application (or the attacker was able to control the content of the web application by some other means) then this, along with the ability to process a file as a JSP, made remote code execution possible. It is important to note that mitigation is only required if an AJP port is accessible to untrusted users. Users wishing to take a defence-in-depth approach and block the vector that permits returning arbitrary files and execution as JSP may upgrade to Apache Tomcat 9.0.31, 8.5.51 or 7.0.100 or later. A number of changes were made to the default AJP Connector configuration in 9.0.31 to harden the default configuration. It is likely that users upgrading to 9.0.31, 8.5.51 or 7.0.100 or later will need to make small changes to their configurations. |
| CVE-2020-1935 | Medium | 2020-02-24 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.30, 8.5.0 to 8.5.50 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.99 the HTTP header parsing code used an approach to end-of-line parsing that allowed some invalid HTTP headers to be parsed as valid. This led to a possibility of HTTP Request Smuggling if Tomcat was located behind a reverse proxy that incorrectly handled the invalid Transfer-Encoding header in a particular manner. Such a reverse proxy is considered unlikely. |