VRT Sign in

Element Software Management Node CVEs with no public exploit

1 CVE

Look up CVE IDs Status Exploitation Severity

Reset

Overview 1 match · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5

1match 0protected0.0% 0exploited0.0% 0CISA KEV0.0% 0public PoC0.0% 0EPSS ≥ 0.50.0%

Protected by Waratek 0 0.0% Rule in development 0 0.0% Mitigation candidate 0 0.0% No exploit published 1 100.0%

Critical 1 100.0% High 0 0.0% Medium 0 0.0% Low 0 0.0% None 0 0.0% Unknown 0 0.0%

blocked by ARMR today 0 0.0% partly blocked 0 0.0% not blocked 1 100.0% not established 0 0.0% unrecorded 0 0.0%

Exploited 0 0.0% Working exploit published 0 0.0% Proof of concept only 0 0.0% Forecast only 0 0.0% No public exploit 1 100.0%

split by StatusSeverityProtectionExploit maturity peak 1 / month

Jun 181 No exploit published1 Critical1 not blocked1 No public exploit1

Jun 18

1 match Sign in to download these CVEs as CSV or JSON, or to follow them in a feed.

CVE	Severity	Published▾	Status	Exploitation	Description
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.

CVE

Severity

Published▾

Status

Exploitation

Description

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.