Overview 6 matches · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC
6matches
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
6
100.0%
blocked by ARMR today
0
0.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
6
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
6
100.0%
No public exploit
0
0.0%
split by
peak 1 / quarter
Q3 161
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
Forecast only1
Q4 160
Q1 170
Q2 170
Q3 171
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
Forecast only1
Q4 170
Q1 180
Q2 180
Q3 180
Q4 180
Q1 190
Q2 191
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
Forecast only1
Q3 190
Q4 190
Q1 200
Q2 200
Q3 201
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
Forecast only1
Q4 201
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
Forecast only1
Q1 210
Q2 210
Q3 211
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
Forecast only1
Q3 16Q1 17Q3 17Q1 18Q3 18Q1 19Q3 19Q1 20Q3 20Q1 21Q3 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-2020-13943 | 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. |
| CVE-2020-13934 | High | 2020-07-14 | No exploit published | Forecast only | An h2c direct connection to Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M6, 9.0.0.M5 to 9.0.36 and 8.5.1 to 8.5.56 did not release the HTTP/1.1 processor after the upgrade to HTTP/2. If a sufficient number of such requests were made, an OutOfMemoryException could occur leading to a denial of service. |
| CVE-2019-0199 | High | 2019-04-10 | No exploit published | Forecast only | The HTTP/2 implementation in Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.14 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.37 accepted streams with excessive numbers of SETTINGS frames and also permitted clients to keep streams open without reading/writing request/response data. By keeping streams open for requests that utilised the Servlet API's blocking I/O, clients were able to cause server-side threads to block eventually leading to thread exhaustion and a DoS. |
| CVE-2017-12616 | High | 2017-09-19 | No exploit published | Forecast only | When using a VirtualDirContext with Apache Tomcat 7.0.0 to 7.0.80 it was possible to bypass security constraints and/or view the source code of JSPs for resources served by the VirtualDirContext using a specially crafted request. |
| CVE-2016-5388 | High | 2016-07-19 | No exploit published | Forecast only | Apache Tomcat 7.x through 7.0.70 and 8.x through 8.5.4, when the CGI Servlet is enabled, follows RFC 3875 section 4.1.18 and therefore does not protect applications from the presence of untrusted client data in the HTTP_PROXY environment variable, which might allow remote attackers to redirect an application's outbound HTTP traffic to an arbitrary proxy server via a crafted Proxy header in an HTTP request, aka an "httpoxy" issue. NOTE: the vendor states "A mitigation is planned for future releases of Tomcat, tracked as CVE-2016-5388"; in other words, this is not a CVE ID for a vulnerability. |