Medium Debian Linux CVEs with no public exploit
3 CVEs
Overview 3 matches · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC
3matches
0protected0.0%
0exploited0.0%
0CISA KEV0.0%
0public PoC0.0%
Protected by Waratek
0
0.0%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
3
100.0%
blocked by ARMR today
0
0.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
3
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
3
100.0%
No public exploit
0
0.0%
split by
peak 1 / month
Oct 20Nov 20Dec 20Jan 21Feb 21Mar 21Apr 21May 21Jun 21Jul 21
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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-2020-27223 | Medium | 2021-02-26 | No exploit published | Forecast only | In Eclipse Jetty 9.4.6.v20170531 to 9.4.36.v20210114 (inclusive), 10.0.0, and 11.0.0 when Jetty handles a request containing multiple Accept headers with a large number of “quality” (i.e. q) parameters, the server may enter a denial of service (DoS) state due to high CPU usage processing those quality values, resulting in minutes of CPU time exhausted processing those quality values. |
| 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. |