Overview 4 matches · 1 in Waratek scope · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 2 public PoC · 1 EPSS ≥ 0.5
4matches
1in Waratek scope25.0%
0protected0.0%
0exploited0.0%
0CISA KEV0.0%
2public PoC50.0%
1EPSS ≥ 0.525.0%
Protected by Waratek
0
0.0%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
1
25.0%
No exploit published
0
0.0%
Outside Waratek scope
0
0.0%
Not applicable
3
75.0%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
0
0.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
4
100.0%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
0
0.0%
Working exploit published
1
25.0%
Proof of concept only
1
25.0%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
2
50.0%
split by
peak 2 / quarter
Q3 182
Not applicable2
High2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
Q4 180
Q1 190
Q2 190
Q3 190
Q4 190
Q1 201
Mitigation candidate1
Critical1
not blocked1
Working exploit published1
Q2 200
Q3 200
Q4 200
Q1 210
Q2 210
Q3 210
Q4 210
Q1 220
Q2 220
Q3 220
Q4 220
Q1 230
Q2 230
Q3 230
Q4 230
Q1 240
Q2 241
Not applicable1
Medium1
not blocked1
Proof of concept only1
Q4 18Q2 19Q4 19Q2 20Q4 20Q2 21Q4 21Q2 22Q4 22Q2 23Q4 23Q2 24
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-31497 | Medium | 2024-04-15 | Not applicable | Proof of concept only | In PuTTY 0.68 through 0.80 before 0.81, biased ECDSA nonce generation allows an attacker to recover a user's NIST P-521 secret key via a quick attack in approximately 60 signatures. This is especially important in a scenario where an adversary is able to read messages signed by PuTTY or Pageant. The required set of signed messages may be publicly readable because they are stored in a public Git service that supports use of SSH for commit signing, and the signatures were made by Pageant through an agent-forwarding mechanism. In other words, an adversary may already have enough signature information to compromise a victim's private key, even if there is no further use of vulnerable PuTTY versions. After a key compromise, an adversary may be able to conduct supply-chain attacks on software maintained in Git. A second, independent scenario is that the adversary is an operator of an SSH server to which the victim authenticates (for remote login or file copy), even though this server is not fully trusted by the victim, and the victim uses the same private key for SSH connections to other services operated by other entities. Here, the rogue server operator (who would otherwise have no way to determine the victim's private key) can derive the victim's private key, and then use it for unauthorized access to those other services. If the other services include Git services, then again it may be possible to conduct supply-chain attacks on software maintained in Git. This also affects, for example, FileZilla before 3.67.0, WinSCP before 6.3.3, TortoiseGit before 2.15.0.1, and TortoiseSVN through 1.14.6. |
| CVE-2014-9390 | Critical | 2020-02-12 | Mitigation candidate | Working exploit published | Git before 1.8.5.6, 1.9.x before 1.9.5, 2.0.x before 2.0.5, 2.1.x before 2.1.4, and 2.2.x before 2.2.1 on Windows and OS X; Mercurial before 3.2.3 on Windows and OS X; Apple Xcode before 6.2 beta 3; mine all versions before 08-12-2014; libgit2 all versions up to 0.21.2; Egit all versions before 08-12-2014; and JGit all versions before 08-12-2014 allow remote Git servers to execute arbitrary commands via a tree containing a crafted .git/config file with (1) an ignorable Unicode codepoint, (2) a git~1/config representation, or (3) mixed case that is improperly handled on a case-insensitive filesystem. |
| CVE-2018-13537 | High | 2018-07-09 | Not applicable | No public exploit | The mintToken function of a smart contract implementation for EthereumLegit, an Ethereum token, has an integer overflow that allows the owner of the contract to set the balance of an arbitrary user to any value. |
| CVE-2018-13212 | High | 2018-07-05 | Not applicable | No public exploit | The sell function of a smart contract implementation for EthereumLegit, an Ethereum token, has an integer overflow in which "amount * sellPrice" can be zero, consequently reducing a seller's assets. |