Overview 5 matches · 2 protected · 1 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 3 public PoC
Protected by Waratek
2
40.0%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
1
20.0%
No exploit published
2
40.0%
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
1
20.0%
Working exploit published
2
40.0%
Proof of concept only
0
0.0%
Forecast only
2
40.0%
No public exploit
0
0.0%
split by
peak 2 / quarter
Q2 201
Protected by Waratek1
High1
blocked by ARMR today1
Working exploit published1
Q3 202
Mitigation candidate1
No exploit published1
High2
not blocked2
Working exploit published1
Forecast only1
Q4 200
Q1 210
Q2 210
Q3 211
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
Forecast only1
Q4 211
Protected by Waratek1
Medium1
blocked by ARMR today1
Exploited1
Q2 20Q3 20Q4 20Q1 21Q2 21Q3 21Q4 21
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2021-45105 | Medium | 2021-12-18 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | Apache Log4j2 versions 2.0-alpha1 through 2.16.0 (excluding 2.12.3 and 2.3.1) did not protect from uncontrolled recursion from self-referential lookups. This allows an attacker with control over Thread Context Map data to cause a denial of service when a crafted string is interpreted. This issue was fixed in Log4j 2.17.0, 2.12.3, and 2.3.1. |
| 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-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-2020-13934 | High | 2020-07-14 | No exploit published | Forecast only | An h2c direct connection to Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M6, 9.0.0.M5 to 9.0.36 and 8.5.1 to 8.5.56 did not release the HTTP/1.1 processor after the upgrade to HTTP/2. If a sufficient number of such requests were made, an OutOfMemoryException could occur leading to a denial of service. |
| 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. |