WaratekVRT Sign in
Reset
More filters (1)
Columns
Including CVEs outside Waratek scope✕Product traffic server✕
Overview 8 matches · 0 in Waratek scope · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC
8matches 0in Waratek scope0.0% 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0 0.0% Mitigation candidate 0 0.0% No exploit published 0 0.0% Outside Waratek scope 5 62.5% Not applicable 3 37.5% Withdrawn CVE 0 0.0%
Critical 0 0.0% High 7 87.5% Medium 1 12.5% Low 0 0.0% None 0 0.0% Unknown 0 0.0%
blocked by ARMR today 0 0.0% partly blocked 0 0.0% not blocked 8 100.0% 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 8 100.0% No public exploit 0 0.0%
8 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-2024-31309 High 2024-04-10 Not applicable Forecast only HTTP/2 CONTINUATION DoS attack can cause Apache Traffic Server to consume more resources on the server.  Version from 8.0.0 through 8.1.9, from 9.0.0 through 9.2.3 are affected. Users can set a new setting (proxy.config.http2.max_continuation_frames_per_minute) to limit the number of CONTINUATION frames per minute.  ATS does have a fixed amount of memory a request can use and ATS adheres to these limits in previous releases. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 8.1.10 or 9.2.4 which fixes the issue.
CVE-2023-39456 High 2023-10-17 Not applicable Forecast only Improper Input Validation vulnerability in Apache Traffic Server with malformed HTTP/2 frames.This issue affects Apache Traffic Server: from 9.0.0 through 9.2.2. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 9.2.3, which fixes the issue.
CVE-2019-9516 Medium 2019-08-13 Outside Waratek scope Forecast only Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a header leak, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of headers with a 0-length header name and 0-length header value, optionally Huffman encoded into 1-byte or greater headers. Some implementations allocate memory for these headers and keep the allocation alive until the session dies. This can consume excess memory.
CVE-2019-9515 High 2019-08-13 Outside Waratek scope Forecast only Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a settings flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of SETTINGS frames to the peer. Since the RFC requires that the peer reply with one acknowledgement per SETTINGS frame, an empty SETTINGS frame is almost equivalent in behavior to a ping. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.
CVE-2019-9514 High 2019-08-13 Outside Waratek scope Forecast only Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a reset flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens a number of streams and sends an invalid request over each stream that should solicit a stream of RST_STREAM frames from the peer. Depending on how the peer queues the RST_STREAM frames, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both.
CVE-2019-9513 High 2019-08-13 Outside Waratek scope Forecast only Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU.
CVE-2019-9512 High 2019-08-13 Not applicable Forecast only Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to ping floods, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends continual pings to an HTTP/2 peer, causing the peer to build an internal queue of responses. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.
CVE-2019-9511 High 2019-08-13 Outside Waratek scope Forecast only Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.