WaratekVRT Sign in
Reset
More filters (2)
Columns
Including CVEs outside Waratek scope✕EPSS ≥ 0.5✕Product integration✕
Overview 18 matches · 11 in Waratek scope · 9 protected · 12 exploited · 6 CISA KEV · 14 public PoC
18matches 11in Waratek scope61.1% 9protected50.0% 12exploited66.7% 6CISA KEV33.3% 14public PoC77.8%
Protected by Waratek 9 50.0% Rule in development 0 0.0% Mitigation candidate 1 5.6% No exploit published 1 5.6% Outside Waratek scope 4 22.2% Not applicable 3 16.7% Withdrawn CVE 0 0.0%
Critical 7 38.9% High 7 38.9% Medium 4 22.2% Low 0 0.0% None 0 0.0% Unknown 0 0.0%
blocked by ARMR today 9 50.0% partly blocked 0 0.0% not blocked 9 50.0% not established 0 0.0% unrecorded 0 0.0%
Exploited 12 66.7% Working exploit published 1 5.6% Proof of concept only 2 11.1% Forecast only 3 16.7% No public exploit 0 0.0%
split by peak 5 / year
Not applicable: 3Outside Waratek scope: 4No exploit published: 1Mitigation candidate: 1Protected by Waratek: 9 Medium: 4High: 7Critical: 7 not blocked: 9blocked by ARMR today: 9 Forecast only: 3Proof of concept only: 2Working exploit published: 1Exploited: 12
20081 Not applicable1 High1 not blocked1 Forecast only1 20090 20100 20110 20121 Not applicable1 High1 not blocked1 Exploited1 20130 20140 20150 20160 20171 Protected by Waratek1 Critical1 blocked by ARMR today1 Working exploit published1 20182 Protected by Waratek1 Outside Waratek scope1 Critical1 Medium1 blocked by ARMR today1 not blocked1 Exploited1 Proof of concept only1 20191 Outside Waratek scope1 Medium1 not blocked1 Exploited1 20205 Protected by Waratek2 No exploit published1 Outside Waratek scope2 Critical2 High2 Medium1 blocked by ARMR today2 not blocked3 Exploited3 Proof of concept only1 Forecast only1 20215 Protected by Waratek4 Not applicable1 Critical2 High2 Medium1 blocked by ARMR today4 not blocked1 Exploited4 Forecast only1 20221 Protected by Waratek1 Critical1 blocked by ARMR today1 Exploited1 20231 Mitigation candidate1 High1 not blocked1 Exploited1
20092011201320152017201920212023
18 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-2023-44487 High 2023-10-10 Mitigation candidate Exploited The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023.
CVE-2022-22965 Critical 2022-04-01 Protected by Waratek Exploited A Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux application running on JDK 9+ may be vulnerable to remote code execution (RCE) via data binding. The specific exploit requires the application to run on Tomcat as a WAR deployment. If the application is deployed as a Spring Boot executable jar, i.e. the default, it is not vulnerable to the exploit. However, the nature of the vulnerability is more general, and there may be other ways to exploit it.
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-2021-45046 Critical 2021-12-14 Protected by Waratek Exploited It was found that the fix to address CVE-2021-44228 in Apache Log4j 2.15.0 was incomplete in certain non-default configurations. This could allows attackers with control over Thread Context Map (MDC) input data when the logging configuration uses a non-default Pattern Layout with either a Context Lookup (for example, $${ctx:loginId}) or a Thread Context Map pattern (%X, %mdc, or %MDC) to craft malicious input data using a JNDI Lookup pattern resulting in an information leak and remote code execution in some environments and local code execution in all environments. Log4j 2.16.0 (Java 8) and 2.12.2 (Java 7) fix this issue by removing support for message lookup patterns and disabling JNDI functionality by default.
CVE-2021-4104 High 2021-12-14 Protected by Waratek Exploited JMSAppender in Log4j 1.2 is vulnerable to deserialization of untrusted data when the attacker has write access to the Log4j configuration. The attacker can provide TopicBindingName and TopicConnectionFactoryBindingName configurations causing JMSAppender to perform JNDI requests that result in remote code execution in a similar fashion to CVE-2021-44228. Note this issue only affects Log4j 1.2 when specifically configured to use JMSAppender, which is not the default. Apache Log4j 1.2 reached end of life in August 2015. Users should upgrade to Log4j 2 as it addresses numerous other issues from the previous versions.
CVE-2021-44228 Critical 2021-12-10 Protected by Waratek Exploited Apache Log4j2 2.0-beta9 through 2.15.0 (excluding security releases 2.12.2, 2.12.3, and 2.3.1) JNDI features used in configuration, log messages, and parameters do not protect against attacker controlled LDAP and other JNDI related endpoints. An attacker who can control log messages or log message parameters can execute arbitrary code loaded from LDAP servers when message lookup substitution is enabled. From log4j 2.15.0, this behavior has been disabled by default. From version 2.16.0 (along with 2.12.2, 2.12.3, and 2.3.1), this functionality has been completely removed. Note that this vulnerability is specific to log4j-core and does not affect log4net, log4cxx, or other Apache Logging Services projects.
CVE-2021-21480 High 2021-03-09 Not applicable Forecast only SAP MII allows users to create dashboards and save them as JSP through the SSCE (Self Service Composition Environment). An attacker can intercept a request to the server, inject malicious JSP code in the request and forward to server. When this dashboard is opened by users having at least SAP_XMII Developer role, malicious content in the dashboard gets executed, leading to remote code execution in the server, which allows privilege escalation. The malicious JSP code can contain certain OS commands, through which an attacker can read sensitive files in the server, modify files or even delete contents in the server thus compromising the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the server hosting the SAP MII application. Also, an attacker authenticated as a developer can use the application to upload and execute a file which will permit them to execute operating systems commands completely compromising the server hosting the application.
CVE-2020-17530 Critical 2020-12-11 Protected by Waratek Exploited Forced OGNL evaluation, when evaluated on raw user input in tag attributes, may lead to remote code execution. Affected software : Apache Struts 2.0.0 - Struts 2.5.25.
CVE-2019-0233 High 2020-09-14 No exploit published Forecast only An access permission override in Apache Struts 2.0.0 to 2.5.20 may cause a Denial of Service when performing a file upload.
CVE-2019-0230 Critical 2020-09-14 Protected by Waratek Exploited Apache Struts 2.0.0 to 2.5.20 forced double OGNL evaluation, when evaluated on raw user input in tag attributes, may lead to remote code execution.
CVE-2020-11022 Medium 2020-04-29 Outside Waratek scope Exploited In jQuery starting with 1.12.0 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0.
CVE-2020-5398 High 2020-01-17 Outside Waratek scope Proof of concept only In Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.3, versions 5.1.x prior to 5.1.13, and versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.16, an application is vulnerable to a reflected file download (RFD) attack when it sets a "Content-Disposition" header in the response where the filename attribute is derived from user supplied input.
CVE-2019-11358 Medium 2019-04-20 Outside Waratek scope Exploited jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype.
CVE-2018-3639 Medium 2018-05-22 Outside Waratek scope Exploited Systems with microprocessors utilizing speculative execution and speculative execution of memory reads before the addresses of all prior memory writes are known may allow unauthorized disclosure of information to an attacker with local user access via a side-channel analysis, aka Speculative Store Bypass (SSB), Variant 4.
CVE-2018-1270 Critical 2018-04-06 Protected by Waratek Proof of concept only Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, allow applications to expose STOMP over WebSocket endpoints with a simple, in-memory STOMP broker through the spring-messaging module. A malicious user (or attacker) can craft a message to the broker that can lead to a remote code execution attack.
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-2012-1856 High 2012-08-15 Not applicable Exploited The TabStrip ActiveX control in the Common Controls in MSCOMCTL.OCX in Microsoft Office 2003 SP3, Office 2003 Web Components SP3, Office 2007 SP2 and SP3, Office 2010 SP1, SQL Server 2000 SP4, SQL Server 2005 SP4, SQL Server 2008 SP2, SP3, R2, R2 SP1, and R2 SP2, Commerce Server 2002 SP4, Commerce Server 2007 SP2, Commerce Server 2009 Gold and R2, Host Integration Server 2004 SP1, Visual FoxPro 8.0 SP1, Visual FoxPro 9.0 SP2, and Visual Basic 6.0 Runtime allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted (1) document or (2) web page that triggers system-state corruption, aka "MSCOMCTL.OCX RCE Vulnerability."
CVE-2008-3466 High 2008-10-15 Not applicable Forecast only Microsoft Host Integration Server (HIS) 2000, 2004, and 2006 does not limit RPC access to administrative functions, which allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and execute arbitrary programs via a crafted SNA RPC message using opcode 1 or 6 to call the CreateProcess function, aka "HIS Command Execution Vulnerability."