Overview 18 matches · 7 in Waratek scope · 4 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 3 public PoC · 1 EPSS ≥ 0.5
18matches
7in Waratek scope38.9%
4protected22.2%
0exploited0.0%
0CISA KEV0.0%
3public PoC16.7%
1EPSS ≥ 0.55.6%
Protected by Waratek
4
22.2%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
3
16.7%
Outside Waratek scope
6
33.3%
Not applicable
5
27.8%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
4
22.2%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
14
77.8%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
0
0.0%
Working exploit published
2
11.1%
Proof of concept only
3
16.7%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
13
72.2%
split by
peak 5 / year
20151
Outside Waratek scope1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20161
Not applicable1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20172
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published1
Critical1
High1
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked1
Working exploit published1
No public exploit1
20185
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published1
Outside Waratek scope3
Critical1
High1
Medium3
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked4
Working exploit published1
No public exploit4
20193
Protected by Waratek1
Outside Waratek scope1
Not applicable1
Critical1
High1
Medium1
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked2
No public exploit3
20203
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published1
Outside Waratek scope1
High2
Medium1
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked2
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit2
20210
20220
20230
20242
Not applicable2
Medium2
not blocked2
Proof of concept only2
20250
20261
Not applicable1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-2606 | Medium | 2026-03-03 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM webMethods API Gateway (on-prem) 10.11 through 10.11_Fix3210.15 to 10.15_Fix2711.1 to 11.1_Fix7 IBM webMethods API Management (on-prem) fails to properly validate user-supplied input passed to the url parameter on the /createapi endpoint. An attacker can modify this parameter to use a file:// URI schema instead of the expected https:// schema, enabling unauthorized arbitrary file read access on the underlying server file system. |
| CVE-2023-50093 | Medium | 2024-01-03 | Not applicable | Proof of concept only | APIIDA API Gateway Manager for Broadcom Layer7 v2023.2.2 is vulnerable to Host Header Injection. |
| CVE-2023-50092 | Medium | 2024-01-03 | Not applicable | Proof of concept only | APIIDA API Gateway Manager for Broadcom Layer7 v2023.2 is vulnerable to Cross Site Scripting (XSS). |
| CVE-2020-1971 | Medium | 2020-12-08 | Outside Waratek scope | Proof of concept only | The X.509 GeneralName type is a generic type for representing different types of names. One of those name types is known as EDIPartyName. OpenSSL provides a function GENERAL_NAME_cmp which compares different instances of a GENERAL_NAME to see if they are equal or not. This function behaves incorrectly when both GENERAL_NAMEs contain an EDIPARTYNAME. A NULL pointer dereference and a crash may occur leading to a possible denial of service attack. OpenSSL itself uses the GENERAL_NAME_cmp function for two purposes: 1) Comparing CRL distribution point names between an available CRL and a CRL distribution point embedded in an X509 certificate 2) When verifying that a timestamp response token signer matches the timestamp authority name (exposed via the API functions TS_RESP_verify_response and TS_RESP_verify_token) If an attacker can control both items being compared then that attacker could trigger a crash. For example if the attacker can trick a client or server into checking a malicious certificate against a malicious CRL then this may occur. Note that some applications automatically download CRLs based on a URL embedded in a certificate. This checking happens prior to the signatures on the certificate and CRL being verified. OpenSSL's s_server, s_client and verify tools have support for the "-crl_download" option which implements automatic CRL downloading and this attack has been demonstrated to work against those tools. Note that an unrelated bug means that affected versions of OpenSSL cannot parse or construct correct encodings of EDIPARTYNAME. However it is possible to construct a malformed EDIPARTYNAME that OpenSSL's parser will accept and hence trigger this attack. All OpenSSL 1.1.1 and 1.0.2 versions are affected by this issue. Other OpenSSL releases are out of support and have not been checked. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1i (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1h). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2x (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2w). |
| CVE-2019-17566 | High | 2020-11-12 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | Apache Batik is vulnerable to server-side request forgery, caused by improper input validation by the "xlink:href" attributes. By using a specially-crafted argument, an attacker could exploit this vulnerability to cause the underlying server to make arbitrary GET requests. |
| CVE-2020-11979 | High | 2020-10-01 | No exploit published | No public exploit | As mitigation for CVE-2020-1945 Apache Ant 1.10.8 changed the permissions of temporary files it created so that only the current user was allowed to access them. Unfortunately the fixcrlf task deleted the temporary file and created a new one without said protection, effectively nullifying the effort. This would still allow an attacker to inject modified source files into the build process. |
| CVE-2019-15631 | Critical | 2019-12-02 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Remote Code Execution vulnerability in MuleSoft Mule CE/EE 3.x and API Gateway 2.x released before October 31, 2019 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code. |
| CVE-2019-15630 | High | 2019-08-30 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | Directory Traversal in APIkit, HTTP connector, and OAuth2 Provider components in MuleSoft Mule Runtime 3.2.0 and higher released before August 1 2019, MuleSoft Mule Runtime 4.1.0 and higher released before August 1 2019, and all versions of MuleSoft API Gateway released before August 1 2019 allow remote attackers to read files accessible to the Mule process. |
| CVE-2019-1559 | Medium | 2019-02-27 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | If an application encounters a fatal protocol error and then calls SSL_shutdown() twice (once to send a close_notify, and once to receive one) then OpenSSL can respond differently to the calling application if a 0 byte record is received with invalid padding compared to if a 0 byte record is received with an invalid MAC. If the application then behaves differently based on that in a way that is detectable to the remote peer, then this amounts to a padding oracle that could be used to decrypt data. In order for this to be exploitable "non-stitched" ciphersuites must be in use. Stitched ciphersuites are optimised implementations of certain commonly used ciphersuites. Also the application must call SSL_shutdown() twice even if a protocol error has occurred (applications should not do this but some do anyway). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2r (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2q). |
| CVE-2018-5407 | Medium | 2018-11-15 | Outside Waratek scope | Working exploit published | Simultaneous Multi-threading (SMT) in processors can enable local users to exploit software vulnerable to timing attacks via a side-channel timing attack on 'port contention'. |
| CVE-2018-0734 | Medium | 2018-10-30 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | The OpenSSL DSA signature algorithm has been shown to be vulnerable to a timing side channel attack. An attacker could use variations in the signing algorithm to recover the private key. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1a (Affected 1.1.1). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.0j (Affected 1.1.0-1.1.0i). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2q (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2p). |
| CVE-2018-0735 | Medium | 2018-10-29 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | The OpenSSL ECDSA signature algorithm has been shown to be vulnerable to a timing side channel attack. An attacker could use variations in the signing algorithm to recover the private key. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.0j (Affected 1.1.0-1.1.0i). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1a (Affected 1.1.1). |
| CVE-2018-1000613 | Critical | 2018-07-09 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | Legion of the Bouncy Castle Legion of the Bouncy Castle Java Cryptography APIs 1.58 up to but not including 1.60 contains a CWE-470: Use of Externally-Controlled Input to Select Classes or Code ('Unsafe Reflection') vulnerability in XMSS/XMSS^MT private key deserialization that can result in Deserializing an XMSS/XMSS^MT private key can result in the execution of unexpected code. This attack appear to be exploitable via A handcrafted private key can include references to unexpected classes which will be picked up from the class path for the executing application. This vulnerability appears to have been fixed in 1.60 and later. |
| CVE-2018-1000180 | High | 2018-06-05 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Bouncy Castle BC 1.54 - 1.59, BC-FJA 1.0.0, BC-FJA 1.0.1 and earlier have a flaw in the Low-level interface to RSA key pair generator, specifically RSA Key Pairs generated in low-level API with added certainty may have less M-R tests than expected. This appears to be fixed in versions BC 1.60 beta 4 and later, BC-FJA 1.0.2 and later. |
| CVE-2017-3601 | High | 2017-04-24 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Vulnerability in the Oracle API Gateway component of Oracle Fusion Middleware (subcomponent: Oracle API Gateway). The supported version that is affected is 11.1.2.4.0. Easily "exploitable" vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle API Gateway. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized creation, deletion or modification access to critical data or all Oracle API Gateway accessible data as well as unauthorized access to critical data or complete access to all Oracle API Gateway accessible data. CVSS 3.0 Base Score 8.1 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N). |
| 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-2016-3118 | Medium | 2016-04-06 | Not applicable | No public exploit | CRLF injection vulnerability in CA API Gateway (formerly Layer7 API Gateway) 7.1 before 7.1.04, 8.0 through 8.3 before 8.3.01, and 8.4 before 8.4.01 allows remote attackers to have an unspecified impact via unknown vectors. |
| CVE-2015-3195 | Medium | 2015-12-06 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | The ASN1_TFLG_COMBINE implementation in crypto/asn1/tasn_dec.c in OpenSSL before 0.9.8zh, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0t, 1.0.1 before 1.0.1q, and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2e mishandles errors caused by malformed X509_ATTRIBUTE data, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory by triggering a decoding failure in a PKCS#7 or CMS application. |