Oracle Utilities Applications CVEs with no public exploit
4 CVEs, 3 protected by Waratek
Overview 4 matches · 3 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC
Protected by Waratek
3
75.0%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
1
25.0%
blocked by ARMR today
3
75.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
1
25.0%
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
4
100.0%
No public exploit
0
0.0%
split by
peak 2 / quarter
Q3 19Q4 19Q1 20Q2 20Q3 20Q4 20Q1 21Q2 21Q3 21Q4 21Q1 22
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2022-23307 | High | 2022-01-18 | Protected by Waratek | Forecast only | CVE-2020-9493 identified a deserialization issue that was present in Apache Chainsaw. Prior to Chainsaw V2.0 Chainsaw was a component of Apache Log4j 1.2.x where the same issue exists. |
| CVE-2022-23302 | High | 2022-01-18 | Protected by Waratek | Forecast only | JMSSink in all versions of Log4j 1.x is vulnerable to deserialization of untrusted data when the attacker has write access to the Log4j configuration or if the configuration references an LDAP service the attacker has access to. The attacker can provide a TopicConnectionFactoryBindingName configuration causing JMSSink to perform JNDI requests that result in remote code execution in a similar fashion to CVE-2021-4104. Note this issue only affects Log4j 1.x when specifically configured to use JMSSink, 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-2021-33037 | 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-2019-10173 | Critical | 2019-07-23 | Protected by Waratek | Forecast only | It was found that xstream API version 1.4.10 before 1.4.11 introduced a regression for a previous deserialization flaw. If the security framework has not been initialized, it may allow a remote attacker to run arbitrary shell commands when unmarshalling XML or any supported format. e.g. JSON. (regression of CVE-2013-7285) |