WaratekVRT Sign in

Critical System Manager CVEs

4 CVEs, 1 exploited, 2 protected by Waratek

Reset
More filters (1)
Columns
Product system manager✕
Overview 4 matches · 2 protected · 1 exploited · 1 CISA KEV · 2 public PoC · 2 EPSS ≥ 0.5
Protected by Waratek 2 50.0% Rule in development 0 0.0% Mitigation candidate 0 0.0% No exploit published 2 50.0%
Critical 4 100.0% High 0 0.0% Medium 0 0.0% Low 0 0.0% None 0 0.0% Unknown 0 0.0%
blocked by ARMR today 2 50.0% partly blocked 0 0.0% not blocked 2 50.0% not established 0 0.0% unrecorded 0 0.0%
Exploited 1 25.0% Working exploit published 0 0.0% Proof of concept only 1 25.0% Forecast only 0 0.0% No public exploit 2 50.0%
split by peak 2 / quarter
Q2 18Q3 18Q4 18Q1 19Q2 19Q3 19Q4 19Q1 20
4 matches Sign in to download these CVEs as CSV or JSON, or to follow them in a feed.
CVE Severity Published▾ Status Exploitation Description
CVE-2020-1938 Critical 2020-02-24 Protected by Waratek Exploited When using the Apache JServ Protocol (AJP), care must be taken when trusting incoming connections to Apache Tomcat. Tomcat treats AJP connections as having higher trust than, for example, a similar HTTP connection. If such connections are available to an attacker, they can be exploited in ways that may be surprising. In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.30, 8.5.0 to 8.5.50 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.99, Tomcat shipped with an AJP Connector enabled by default that listened on all configured IP addresses. It was expected (and recommended in the security guide) that this Connector would be disabled if not required. This vulnerability report identified a mechanism that allowed: - returning arbitrary files from anywhere in the web application - processing any file in the web application as a JSP Further, if the web application allowed file upload and stored those files within the web application (or the attacker was able to control the content of the web application by some other means) then this, along with the ability to process a file as a JSP, made remote code execution possible. It is important to note that mitigation is only required if an AJP port is accessible to untrusted users. Users wishing to take a defence-in-depth approach and block the vector that permits returning arbitrary files and execution as JSP may upgrade to Apache Tomcat 9.0.31, 8.5.51 or 7.0.100 or later. A number of changes were made to the default AJP Connector configuration in 9.0.31 to harden the default configuration. It is likely that users upgrading to 9.0.31, 8.5.51 or 7.0.100 or later will need to make small changes to their configurations.
CVE-2019-17571 Critical 2019-12-20 Protected by Waratek Proof of concept only Included in Log4j 1.2 is a SocketServer class that is vulnerable to deserialization of untrusted data which can be exploited to remotely execute arbitrary code when combined with a deserialization gadget when listening to untrusted network traffic for log data. This affects Log4j versions up to 1.2 up to 1.2.17.
CVE-2017-7658 Critical 2018-06-26 No exploit published No public exploit In Eclipse Jetty Server, versions 9.2.x and older, 9.3.x (all non HTTP/1.x configurations), and 9.4.x (all HTTP/1.x configurations), when presented with two content-lengths headers, Jetty ignored the second. When presented with a content-length and a chunked encoding header, the content-length was ignored (as per RFC 2616). If an intermediary decided on the shorter length, but still passed on the longer body, then body content could be interpreted by Jetty as a pipelined request. If the intermediary was imposing authorization, the fake pipelined request would bypass that authorization.
CVE-2017-7657 Critical 2018-06-26 No exploit published No public exploit In Eclipse Jetty, versions 9.2.x and older, 9.3.x (all configurations), and 9.4.x (non-default configuration with RFC2616 compliance enabled), transfer-encoding chunks are handled poorly. The chunk length parsing was vulnerable to an integer overflow. Thus a large chunk size could be interpreted as a smaller chunk size and content sent as chunk body could be interpreted as a pipelined request. If Jetty was deployed behind an intermediary that imposed some authorization and that intermediary allowed arbitrarily large chunks to be passed on unchanged, then this flaw could be used to bypass the authorization imposed by the intermediary as the fake pipelined request would not be interpreted by the intermediary as a request.