Oracle Construction and Engineering CVEs with a working exploit
7 CVEs, 6 protected by Waratek
Overview 7 matches · 6 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 5 EPSS ≥ 0.5
Protected by Waratek
6
85.7%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
1
14.3%
No exploit published
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
6
85.7%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
1
14.3%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
0
0.0%
Working exploit published
7
100.0%
Proof of concept only
0
0.0%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
0
0.0%
split by
peak 2 / year
20172
Protected by Waratek2
Critical1
Medium1
blocked by ARMR today2
Working exploit published2
20180
20190
20202
Protected by Waratek1
Mitigation candidate1
High2
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked1
Working exploit published2
20210
20220
20230
20241
Protected by Waratek1
High1
blocked by ARMR today1
Working exploit published1
20252
Protected by Waratek2
Critical1
Medium1
blocked by ARMR today2
Working exploit published2
201720182019202020212022202320242025
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-66516 | Critical | 2025-12-04 | Protected by Waratek | Working exploit published | Critical XXE in Apache Tika tika-core (1.13-3.2.1), tika-pdf-module (2.0.0-3.2.1) and tika-parsers (1.13-1.28.5) modules on all platforms allows an attacker to carry out XML External Entity injection via a crafted XFA file inside of a PDF. This CVE covers the same vulnerability as in CVE-2025-54988. However, this CVE expands the scope of affected packages in two ways. First, while the entrypoint for the vulnerability was the tika-parser-pdf-module as reported in CVE-2025-54988, the vulnerability and its fix were in tika-core. Users who upgraded the tika-parser-pdf-module but did not upgrade tika-core to >= 3.2.2 would still be vulnerable. Second, the original report failed to mention that in the 1.x Tika releases, the PDFParser was in the "org.apache.tika:tika-parsers" module. |
| CVE-2025-41242 | Medium | 2025-08-18 | Protected by Waratek | Working exploit published | Spring Framework MVC applications can be vulnerable to a “Path Traversal Vulnerability” when deployed on a non-compliant Servlet container. An application can be vulnerable when all the following are true: * the application is deployed as a WAR or with an embedded Servlet container * the Servlet container does not reject suspicious sequences https://jakarta.ee/specifications/servlet/6.1/jakarta-servlet-spec-6.1.html#uri-path-canonicalization * the application serves static resources https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/reference/web/webmvc/mvc-config/static-resources.html#page-title with Spring resource handling We have verified that applications deployed on Apache Tomcat or Eclipse Jetty are not vulnerable, as long as default security features are not disabled in the configuration. Because we cannot check exploits against all Servlet containers and configuration variants, we strongly recommend upgrading your application. |
| CVE-2024-38819 | High | 2024-12-19 | Protected by Waratek | Working exploit published | Applications serving static resources through the functional web frameworks WebMvc.fn or WebFlux.fn are vulnerable to path traversal attacks. An attacker can craft malicious HTTP requests and obtain any file on the file system that is also accessible to the process in which the Spring application is running. |
| 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-2020-9484 | 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-2017-5645 | Critical | 2017-04-17 | Protected by Waratek | Working exploit published | In Apache Log4j 2.x before 2.8.2, when using the TCP socket server or UDP socket server to receive serialized log events from another application, a specially crafted binary payload can be sent that, when deserialized, can execute arbitrary code. |
| CVE-2016-5725 | Medium | 2017-01-19 | Protected by Waratek | Working exploit published | Directory traversal vulnerability in JCraft JSch before 0.1.54 on Windows, when the mode is ChannelSftp.OVERWRITE, allows remote SFTP servers to write to arbitrary files via a ..\ (dot dot backslash) in a response to a recursive GET command. |