WaratekVRT Sign in

Medium Common CVEs

107 CVEs, 10 protected by Waratek

Reset
More filters (1)
Columns
Product common✕
Overview 107 matches · 10 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
107matches 10protected9.3% 0exploited0.0% 0CISA KEV0.0% 0public PoC0.0% 0EPSS ≥ 0.50.0%
Protected by Waratek 10 9.3% Rule in development 0 0.0% Mitigation candidate 0 0.0% No exploit published 97 90.7%
Critical 0 0.0% High 0 0.0% Medium 107 100.0% Low 0 0.0% None 0 0.0% Unknown 0 0.0%
blocked by ARMR today 10 9.3% partly blocked 0 0.0% not blocked 97 90.7% not established 0 0.0% unrecorded 0 0.0%
Exploited 0 0.0% Working exploit published 0 0.0% Proof of concept only 5 4.7% Forecast only 0 0.0% No public exploit 102 95.3%
split by peak 21 / year
No exploit published: 97Protected by Waratek: 10 Medium: 107 not blocked: 97blocked by ARMR today: 10 No public exploit: 102Proof of concept only: 5
20122014201620182020202220242026
107 matches Sign in to download these CVEs as CSV or JSON, or to follow them in a feed. ‹ prev page 2 of 2 next ›
CVE Severity Published▾ Status Exploitation Description
CVE-2014-3604 Medium 2014-10-25 No exploit published No public exploit Certificates.java in Not Yet Commons SSL before 0.3.15 does not properly verify that the server hostname matches a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) field of the X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers via an arbitrary valid certificate.
CVE-2012-6153 Medium 2014-09-04 Protected by Waratek No public exploit http/conn/ssl/AbstractVerifier.java in Apache Commons HttpClient before 4.2.3 does not properly verify that the server hostname matches a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) or subjectAltName field of the X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers via a certificate with a subject that specifies a common name in a field that is not the CN field. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2012-5783.
CVE-2011-1483 Medium 2013-07-29 No exploit published No public exploit wsf/common/DOMUtils.java in JBossWS Native in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 4.2.0.CP09, 4.3, and 5.1.1; JBoss Enterprise Portal Platform 4.3.CP06 and 5.1.1; JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform 4.2.CP05, 4.3.CP05, and 5.1.0; JBoss Communications Platform 1.2.11 and 5.1.1; JBoss Enterprise BRMS Platform 5.1.0; and JBoss Enterprise Web Platform 5.1.1 does not properly handle recursion during entity expansion, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory and CPU consumption) via a crafted request containing an XML document with a DOCTYPE declaration and a large number of nested entity references, a similar issue to CVE-2003-1564.
CVE-2013-0248 Medium 2013-03-15 No exploit published No public exploit The default configuration of javax.servlet.context.tempdir in Apache Commons FileUpload 1.0 through 1.2.2 uses the /tmp directory for uploaded files, which allows local users to overwrite arbitrary files via an unspecified symlink attack.
CVE-2012-5783 Medium 2012-11-04 Protected by Waratek No public exploit Apache Commons HttpClient 3.x, as used in Amazon Flexible Payments Service (FPS) merchant Java SDK and other products, does not verify that the server hostname matches a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) or subjectAltName field of the X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers via an arbitrary valid certificate.
CVE-2011-4461 Medium 2011-12-30 No exploit published No public exploit Jetty 8.1.0.RC2 and earlier computes hash values for form parameters without restricting the ability to trigger hash collisions predictably, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) by sending many crafted parameters.
CVE-2011-2729 Medium 2011-08-15 No exploit published No public exploit native/unix/native/jsvc-unix.c in jsvc in the Daemon component 1.0.3 through 1.0.6 in Apache Commons, as used in Apache Tomcat 5.5.32 through 5.5.33, 6.0.30 through 6.0.32, and 7.0.x before 7.0.20 on Linux, does not drop capabilities, which allows remote attackers to bypass read permissions for files via a request to an application.
‹ prev page 2 of 2 next ›