Overview 15 matches · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
15matches
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
15
100.0%
blocked by ARMR today
0
0.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
15
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
15
100.0%
split by
peak 8 / year
20191
No exploit published1
Critical1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20200
20210
20222
No exploit published2
Medium2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
20238
No exploit published8
High2
Medium6
not blocked8
No public exploit8
20241
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20250
20263
No exploit published3
High2
Medium1
not blocked3
No public exploit3
20192020202120222023202420252026
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-71892 | Medium | 2026-10-03 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport recipients, org.bouncycastle.cms.jcajce.JceKeyTransRecipient.setKeySizeValidation(true), never ran for a message using RFC 9709 content-encryption key derivation (id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256). The branch that should have selected the actual content-encryption algorithm carried in the key derivation AlgorithmIdentifier's parameters compared the encrypted-key byte array against the id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 object identifier, a comparison between a byte array and an ASN1ObjectIdentifier that is false for every possible input, so the check fell through to a key-size lookup on the outer wrapper OID. That OID identifies a key-derivation construction rather than a cipher and has no registered key size, so the size comparison was skipped entirely. A key-transport EnvelopedData or AuthEnvelopedData whose transported, HKDF-derived content-encryption key did not match the key size of the advertised content-encryption algorithm was therefore accepted even with validation explicitly enabled, silently defeating the only mechanism the API offers for enforcing recovered key size. The recipient now dispatches on the content-encryption AlgorithmIdentifier's algorithm OID, so validation checks the recovered key against the inner content-encryption algorithm. Messages with a matching key size, non-HKDF messages, and recipients that do not enable validation are unaffected. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series). |
| CVE-2026-55771 | High | 2026-07-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | CedarJava is an open source Java implementation of the Cedar policy language, used for fine-grained authorization decisions. In versions prior to 4.9.0, the EntityIdentifier.equals() has inverted null/self branches which could lead to incorrect equality comparisons. The EntityIdentifier.equals() method has inverted logic for null and self-reference checks, returning true for null comparisons and false for self-comparisons. This does not affect Cedar authorization decisions (computed in Rust from JSON), but could affect integrators who perform their own equality checks on entity identifiers. This issue has been fixed in version 4.9.0. |
| CVE-2026-44249 | High | 2026-06-11 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Netty is a network application framework for development of protocol servers and clients. In netty-handler prior to versions 4.1.135.Final and 4.2.15.Final, an attacker can bypass IPv6 subnet rules due to an incorrect masking operation in IpSubnetFilterRule.compareTo(). Valid public IP addresses can bypass the restrictions. Versions 4.1.135.Final and 4.2.15.Final patch the issue. |
| CVE-2024-23903 | Medium | 2024-01-24 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Jenkins GitLab Branch Source Plugin 684.vea_fa_7c1e2fe3 and earlier uses a non-constant time comparison function when checking whether the provided and expected webhook token are equal, potentially allowing attackers to use statistical methods to obtain a valid webhook token. |
| CVE-2023-46660 | Medium | 2023-10-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Jenkins Zanata Plugin 0.6 and earlier uses a non-constant time comparison function when checking whether the provided and expected webhook token hashes are equal, potentially allowing attackers to use statistical methods to obtain a valid webhook token. |
| CVE-2023-46658 | Medium | 2023-10-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Jenkins MSTeams Webhook Trigger Plugin 0.1.1 and earlier uses a non-constant time comparison function when checking whether the provided and expected webhook token are equal, potentially allowing attackers to use statistical methods to obtain a valid webhook token. |
| CVE-2023-46657 | Medium | 2023-10-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Jenkins Gogs Plugin 1.0.15 and earlier uses a non-constant time comparison function when checking whether the provided and expected webhook token are equal, potentially allowing attackers to use statistical methods to obtain a valid webhook token. |
| CVE-2023-46656 | Medium | 2023-10-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Jenkins Multibranch Scan Webhook Trigger Plugin 1.0.9 and earlier uses a non-constant time comparison function when checking whether the provided and expected webhook token are equal, potentially allowing attackers to use statistical methods to obtain a valid webhook token. |
| CVE-2023-41936 | High | 2023-09-06 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Jenkins Google Login Plugin 1.7 and earlier uses a non-constant time comparison function when checking whether the provided and expected token are equal, potentially allowing attackers to use statistical methods to obtain a valid token. |
| CVE-2023-41935 | High | 2023-09-06 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Jenkins Azure AD Plugin 396.v86ce29279947 and earlier, except 378.380.v545b_1154b_3fb_, uses a non-constant time comparison function when checking whether the provided and expected CSRF protection nonce are equal, potentially allowing attackers to use statistical methods to obtain a valid nonce. |
| CVE-2023-40037 | Medium | 2023-08-18 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Apache NiFi 1.21.0 through 1.23.0 support JDBC and JNDI JMS access in several Processors and Controller Services with connection URL validation that does not provide sufficient protection against crafted inputs. An authenticated and authorized user can bypass connection URL validation using custom input formatting. The resolution enhances connection URL validation and introduces validation for additional related properties. Upgrading to Apache NiFi 1.23.1 is the recommended mitigation. |
| CVE-2023-28936 | Medium | 2023-05-12 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Attacker can access arbitrary recording/room Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation Versions Affected: Apache OpenMeetings from 2.0.0 before 7.1.0 |
| CVE-2022-23554 | Medium | 2022-12-28 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Alpine is a scaffolding library in Java. Alpine prior to version 1.10.4 allows Authentication Filter bypass. The AuthenticationFilter relies on the request URI to evaluate if the user is accessing the swagger endpoint. By accessing a URL with a path such as /api/foo;%2fapi%2fswagger the contains condition will hold and will return from the authentication filter without aborting the request. Note that the principal object will not be assigned and therefore the issue wont allow user impersonation. This issue has been fixed in version 1.10.4. There are no known workarounds. |
| CVE-2022-38179 | Medium | 2022-08-12 | No exploit published | No public exploit | JetBrains Ktor before 2.1.0 was vulnerable to the Reflect File Download attack |
| CVE-2019-10071 | Critical | 2019-09-16 | No exploit published | No public exploit | The code which checks HMAC in form submissions used String.equals() for comparisons, which results in a timing side channel for the comparison of the HMAC signatures. This could lead to remote code execution if an attacker is able to determine the correct signature for their payload. The comparison should be done with a constant time algorithm instead. |