Rack CVEs
35 CVEs, 3 exploited, 12 protected by Waratek
Overview 35 matches · 11 protected · 3 exploited · 2 CISA KEV · 6 public PoC · 9 EPSS ≥ 0.5
Protected by Waratek
12
34.3%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
1
2.9%
No exploit published
22
62.9%
blocked by ARMR today
11
31.4%
partly blocked
1
2.9%
not blocked
23
65.7%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
3
8.6%
Working exploit published
3
8.6%
Proof of concept only
0
0.0%
Forecast only
3
8.6%
No public exploit
26
74.3%
split by
peak 9 / year
20111
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20120
20130
20140
20150
20160
20172
Protected by Waratek2
Critical1
High1
blocked by ARMR today1
partly blocked1
Exploited1
Working exploit published1
20182
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published1
Critical1
Medium1
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked1
No public exploit2
20195
Protected by Waratek3
No exploit published2
Critical1
High2
Medium2
blocked by ARMR today3
not blocked2
No public exploit5
20209
Protected by Waratek3
Mitigation candidate1
No exploit published5
Critical2
High5
Medium2
blocked by ARMR today3
not blocked6
Exploited1
Working exploit published2
Forecast only2
No public exploit4
20219
Protected by Waratek3
No exploit published6
High6
Medium3
blocked by ARMR today3
not blocked6
Exploited1
Forecast only1
No public exploit7
20221
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20231
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20240
20255
No exploit published5
Medium5
not blocked5
No public exploit5
20112013201520172019202120232025
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-62244 | Medium | 2025-10-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Insecure direct object reference (IDOR) vulnerability in Publications in Liferay Portal 7.3.1 through 7.4.3.111, and Liferay DXP 2023.Q4.0 through 2023.Q4.5, 2023.Q3.1 through 2023.Q3.8, and 7.4 GA through update 92, and 7.3 GA through update 36 allows remote authenticated attackers to view the edit page of a publication via the _com_liferay_change_tracking_web_portlet_PublicationsPortlet_ctCollectionId parameter. |
| CVE-2025-62243 | Medium | 2025-10-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Insecure direct object reference (IDOR) vulnerability in Publications in Liferay Portal 7.4.1 through 7.4.3.112, and Liferay DXP 2023.Q4.0 through 2023.Q4.5, 2023.Q3.1 through 2023.Q3.8, and 7.4 GA through update 92 allows remote authenticated attackers to view publication comments via the _com_liferay_change_tracking_web_portlet_PublicationsPortlet_value parameter. Publications comments in Liferay Portal 7.4.1 through 7.4.3.112, and Liferay DXP 2023.Q4.0 through 2023.Q4.5, 2023.Q3.1 through 2023.Q3.8, and 7.4 GA through update 92 does not properly check user permissions, which allows remote authenticated users to edit publication comments via crafted URLs. |
| CVE-2025-62242 | Medium | 2025-10-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability with account addresses in Liferay Portal 7.4.3.4 through 7.4.3.111, and Liferay DXP 2023.Q4.0 through 2023.Q4.5, 2023.Q3.1 through 2023.Q3.8, and 7.4 GA through update 92 allows remote authenticated users to from one account to view addresses from a different account via the _com_liferay_account_admin_web_internal_portlet_AccountEntriesAdminPortlet_addressId parameter. |
| CVE-2025-62245 | Medium | 2025-10-10 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Liferay Portal 7.4.1 through 7.4.3.112, and Liferay DXP 2023.Q4.0 through 2023.Q4.5, 2023.Q3.1 through 2023.Q3.10, and 7.4 GA through update 92 allows remote attackers to add and edit publication comments. |
| CVE-2025-43807 | Medium | 2025-09-22 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the notifications widget in Liferay Portal 7.4.0 through 7.4.3.112, and Liferay DXP 2023.Q4.0 through 2023.Q4.8, 2023.Q3.1 through 2023.Q3.10, and 7.4 GA through update 92 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted payload injected into a publication’s “Name” text field. |
| CVE-2023-50730 | High | 2023-12-22 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Grackle is a GraphQL server written in functional Scala, built on the Typelevel stack. The GraphQL specification requires that GraphQL fragments must not form cycles, either directly or indirectly. Prior to Grackle version 0.18.0, that requirement wasn't checked, and queries with cyclic fragments would have been accepted for type checking and compilation. The attempted compilation of such fragments would result in a JVM `StackOverflowError` being thrown. Some knowledge of an applications GraphQL schema would be required to construct such a query, however no knowledge of any application-specific performance or other behavioural characteristics would be needed. Grackle uses the cats-parse library for parsing GraphQL queries. Prior to version 0.18.0, Grackle made use of the cats-parse `recursive` operator. However, `recursive` is not currently stack safe. `recursive` was used in three places in the parser: nested selection sets, nested input values (lists and objects), and nested list type declarations. Consequently, queries with deeply nested selection sets, input values or list types could be constructed which exploited this, causing a JVM `StackOverflowException` to be thrown during parsing. Because this happens very early in query processing, no specific knowledge of an applications GraphQL schema would be required to construct such a query. The possibility of small queries resulting in stack overflow is a potential denial of service vulnerability. This potentially affects all applications using Grackle which have untrusted users. Both stack overflow issues have been resolved in the v0.18.0 release of Grackle. As a workaround, users could interpose a sanitizing layer in between untrusted input and Grackle query processing. |
| CVE-2022-34192 | Medium | 2022-06-23 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Jenkins ontrack Jenkins Plugin 4.0.0 and earlier does not escape the name of Ontrack: Multi Parameter choice, Ontrack: Parameter choice, and Ontrack: SingleParameter parameters on views displaying parameters, resulting in a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exploitable by attackers with Item/Configure permission. |
| CVE-2021-45105 | Medium | 2021-12-18 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | Apache Log4j2 versions 2.0-alpha1 through 2.16.0 (excluding 2.12.3 and 2.3.1) did not protect from uncontrolled recursion from self-referential lookups. This allows an attacker with control over Thread Context Map data to cause a denial of service when a crafted string is interpreted. This issue was fixed in Log4j 2.17.0, 2.12.3, and 2.3.1. |
| CVE-2021-2351 | High | 2021-07-21 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Vulnerability in the Advanced Networking Option component of Oracle Database Server. Supported versions that are affected are 12.1.0.2, 12.2.0.1 and 19c. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via Oracle Net to compromise Advanced Networking Option. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker and while the vulnerability is in Advanced Networking Option, attacks may significantly impact additional products. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Advanced Networking Option. Note: The July 2021 Critical Patch Update introduces a number of Native Network Encryption changes to deal with vulnerability CVE-2021-2351 and prevent the use of weaker ciphers. Customers should review: "Changes in Native Network Encryption with the July 2021 Critical Patch Update" (Doc ID 2791571.1). CVSS 3.1 Base Score 8.3 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H). |
| CVE-2021-33037 | Medium | 2021-07-12 | No exploit published | Forecast only | Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.6, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.46 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.66 did not correctly parse the HTTP transfer-encoding request header in some circumstances leading to the possibility to request smuggling when used with a reverse proxy. Specifically: - Tomcat incorrectly ignored the transfer encoding header if the client declared it would only accept an HTTP/1.0 response; - Tomcat honoured the identify encoding; and - Tomcat did not ensure that, if present, the chunked encoding was the final encoding. |
| CVE-2021-22222 | High | 2021-06-07 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Infinite loop in DVB-S2-BB dissector in Wireshark 3.4.0 to 3.4.5 allows denial of service via packet injection or crafted capture file |
| CVE-2021-21633 | High | 2021-03-30 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins OWASP Dependency-Track Plugin 3.1.0 and earlier allows attackers to connect to an attacker-specified URL, capturing credentials stored in Jenkins. |
| CVE-2021-21632 | Medium | 2021-03-30 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A missing permission check in Jenkins OWASP Dependency-Track Plugin 3.1.0 and earlier allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to connect to an attacker-specified URL, capturing credentials stored in Jenkins. |
| CVE-2021-25329 | High | 2021-03-01 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | The fix for CVE-2020-9484 was incomplete. When using Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.41, 8.5.0 to 8.5.61 or 7.0.0. to 7.0.107 with a configuration edge case that was highly unlikely to be used, the Tomcat instance was still vulnerable to CVE-2020-9494. Note that both the previously published prerequisites for CVE-2020-9484 and the previously published mitigations for CVE-2020-9484 also apply to this issue. |
| CVE-2021-25122 | High | 2021-03-01 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | When responding to new h2c connection requests, Apache Tomcat versions 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.41 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.61 could duplicate request headers and a limited amount of request body from one request to another meaning user A and user B could both see the results of user A's request. |
| CVE-2020-11987 | High | 2021-02-24 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Apache Batik 1.13 is vulnerable to server-side request forgery, caused by improper input validation by the NodePickerPanel. By using a specially-crafted argument, an attacker could exploit this vulnerability to cause the underlying server to make arbitrary GET requests. |
| CVE-2020-17527 | High | 2020-12-03 | No exploit published | No public exploit | While investigating bug 64830 it was discovered that Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M9, 9.0.0-M1 to 9.0.39 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.59 could re-use an HTTP request header value from the previous stream received on an HTTP/2 connection for the request associated with the subsequent stream. While this would most likely lead to an error and the closure of the HTTP/2 connection, it is possible that information could leak between requests. |
| 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-2020-13943 | Medium | 2020-10-12 | No exploit published | Forecast only | If an HTTP/2 client connecting to Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M7, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.37 or 8.5.0 to 8.5.57 exceeded the agreed maximum number of concurrent streams for a connection (in violation of the HTTP/2 protocol), it was possible that a subsequent request made on that connection could contain HTTP headers - including HTTP/2 pseudo headers - from a previous request rather than the intended headers. This could lead to users seeing responses for unexpected resources. |
| 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-2020-13934 | High | 2020-07-14 | No exploit published | Forecast only | An h2c direct connection to Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M6, 9.0.0.M5 to 9.0.36 and 8.5.1 to 8.5.56 did not release the HTTP/1.1 processor after the upgrade to HTTP/2. If a sufficient number of such requests were made, an OutOfMemoryException could occur leading 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-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-2020-1935 | Medium | 2020-02-24 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.30, 8.5.0 to 8.5.50 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.99 the HTTP header parsing code used an approach to end-of-line parsing that allowed some invalid HTTP headers to be parsed as valid. This led to a possibility of HTTP Request Smuggling if Tomcat was located behind a reverse proxy that incorrectly handled the invalid Transfer-Encoding header in a particular manner. Such a reverse proxy is considered unlikely. |
| CVE-2019-0219 | Critical | 2020-01-14 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A website running in the InAppBrowser webview on Android could execute arbitrary JavaScript in the main application's webview using a specially crafted gap-iab: URI. |
| CVE-2019-17563 | High | 2019-12-23 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | When using FORM authentication with Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.29, 8.5.0 to 8.5.49 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.98 there was a narrow window where an attacker could perform a session fixation attack. The window was considered too narrow for an exploit to be practical but, erring on the side of caution, this issue has been treated as a security vulnerability. |
| CVE-2019-10219 | Medium | 2019-11-08 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | A vulnerability was found in Hibernate-Validator. The SafeHtml validator annotation fails to properly sanitize payloads consisting of potentially malicious code in HTML comments and instructions. This vulnerability can result in an XSS attack. |
| CVE-2019-12415 | Medium | 2019-10-23 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | In Apache POI up to 4.1.0, when using the tool XSSFExportToXml to convert user-provided Microsoft Excel documents, a specially crafted document can allow an attacker to read files from the local filesystem or from internal network resources via XML External Entity (XXE) Processing. |
| CVE-2019-10306 | Critical | 2019-04-18 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A sandbox bypass vulnerability in Jenkins ontrack Plugin 3.4 and earlier allowed attackers with control over ontrack DSL definitions to execute arbitrary code on the Jenkins master JVM. |
| CVE-2019-10287 | High | 2019-04-04 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Jenkins youtrack-plugin Plugin 0.7.1 and older stored credentials unencrypted in its global configuration file on the Jenkins master where they could be viewed by users with access to the master file system. |
| CVE-2018-8032 | Medium | 2018-08-02 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Apache Axis 1.x up to and including 1.4 is vulnerable to a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack in the default servlet/services. |
| CVE-2018-8013 | Critical | 2018-05-24 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | In Apache Batik 1.x before 1.10, when deserializing subclass of `AbstractDocument`, the class takes a string from the inputStream as the class name which then use it to call the no-arg constructor of the class. Fix was to check the class type before calling newInstance in deserialization. |
| CVE-2017-12617 | High | 2017-10-04 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | When running Apache Tomcat versions 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0, 8.5.0 to 8.5.22, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.46 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.81 with HTTP PUTs enabled (e.g. via setting the readonly initialisation parameter of the Default servlet to false) it was possible to upload a JSP file to the server via a specially crafted request. This JSP could then be requested and any code it contained would be executed by the server. |
| 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-2011-5036 | Medium | 2011-12-30 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Rack before 1.1.3, 1.2.x before 1.2.5, and 1.3.x before 1.3.6 computes hash values for form parameters without restricting the ability to trigger hash collisions predictably, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) by sending many crafted parameters. |