Overview 3 matches · 2 protected · 2 exploited · 1 CISA KEV · 2 public PoC
Protected by Waratek
2
66.7%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
1
33.3%
blocked by ARMR today
2
66.7%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
1
33.3%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
2
66.7%
Working exploit published
0
0.0%
Proof of concept only
0
0.0%
Forecast only
1
33.3%
No public exploit
0
0.0%
split by
peak 1 / month
Jul 21Aug 21Sep 21Oct 21Nov 21Dec 21
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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-2021-39144 | High | 2021-08-23 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | XStream is a simple library to serialize objects to XML and back again. In affected versions this vulnerability may allow a remote attacker has sufficient rights to execute commands of the host only by manipulating the processed input stream. No user is affected, who followed the recommendation to setup XStream's security framework with a whitelist limited to the minimal required types. XStream 1.4.18 uses no longer a blacklist by default, since it cannot be secured for general purpose. |
| 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. |