WaratekVRT Sign in
Reset
More filters (2)
Columns
Published from 2024-12-01✕Product java✕
Overview 107 matches · 10 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 1 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
107matches 10protected9.3% 0exploited0.0% 0CISA KEV0.0% 1public PoC0.9% 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 18 16.8% High 56 52.3% Medium 28 26.2% Low 5 4.7% 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 13 12.1% Forecast only 0 0.0% No public exploit 94 87.9%
split by peak 64 / quarter
No exploit published: 97Protected by Waratek: 10 Low: 5Medium: 28High: 56Critical: 18 not blocked: 97blocked by ARMR today: 10 No public exploit: 94Proof of concept only: 13
Q4 242 Protected by Waratek1 No exploit published1 High1 Low1 blocked by ARMR today1 not blocked1 Proof of concept only1 No public exploit1 Q1 250 Q2 251 Protected by Waratek1 Critical1 blocked by ARMR today1 Proof of concept only1 Q3 251 Protected by Waratek1 Critical1 blocked by ARMR today1 No public exploit1 Q4 257 Protected by Waratek1 No exploit published6 High5 Medium2 blocked by ARMR today1 not blocked6 Proof of concept only1 No public exploit6 Q1 265 Protected by Waratek3 No exploit published2 Critical3 High1 Medium1 blocked by ARMR today3 not blocked2 Proof of concept only1 No public exploit4 Q2 265 Protected by Waratek1 No exploit published4 Critical2 High3 blocked by ARMR today1 not blocked4 Proof of concept only1 No public exploit4 Q3 2664 Protected by Waratek1 No exploit published63 Critical11 High39 Medium12 Low2 blocked by ARMR today1 not blocked63 Proof of concept only2 No public exploit62 Q4 2622 Protected by Waratek1 No exploit published21 High7 Medium13 Low2 blocked by ARMR today1 not blocked21 Proof of concept only6 No public exploit16
Q4 24Q1 25Q2 25Q3 25Q4 25Q1 26Q2 26Q3 26Q4 26
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-2025-12183 High 2025-11-28 No exploit published No public exploit Out-of-bounds memory operations in org.lz4:lz4-java 1.8.0 and earlier allow remote attackers to cause denial of service and read adjacent memory via untrusted compressed input.
CVE-2025-66021 High 2025-11-26 No exploit published Proof of concept only OWASP Java HTML Sanitizer is a configureable HTML Sanitizer written in Java, allowing inclusion of HTML authored by third-parties in web applications while protecting against XSS. In version 20240325.1, OWASP java html sanitizer is vulnerable to XSS if HtmlPolicyBuilder allows noscript and style tags with allowTextIn inside the style tag. This could lead to XSS if the payload is crafted in such a way that it does not sanitise the CSS and allows tags which is not mentioned in HTML policy. At time of publication no known patch is available.
CVE-2025-64518 High 2025-11-10 Protected by Waratek No public exploit The CycloneDX core module provides a model representation of the SBOM along with utilities to assist in creating, validating, and parsing SBOMs. Starting in version 2.1.0 and prior to version 11.0.1, the XML `Validator` used by cyclonedx-core-java was not configured securely, making the library vulnerable to XML External Entity (XXE) injection. The fix for GHSA-683x-4444-jxh8 / CVE-2024-38374 was incomplete in that it only fixed parsing of XML BOMs, but not validation. The vulnerability has been fixed in cyclonedx-core-java version 11.0.1. As a workaround, applications can reject XML documents before handing them to cyclonedx-core-java for validation. This may be an option if incoming CycloneDX BOMs are known to be in JSON format.
CVE-2025-59340 Critical 2025-09-17 Protected by Waratek No public exploit jinjava is a Java-based template engine based on django template syntax, adapted to render jinja templates. Priori to 2.8.1, by using mapper.getTypeFactory().constructFromCanonical(), it is possible to instruct the underlying ObjectMapper to deserialize attacker-controlled input into arbitrary classes. This enables the creation of semi-arbitrary class instances without directly invoking restricted methods or class literals. As a result, an attacker can escape the sandbox and instantiate classes such as java.net.URL, opening up the ability to access local files and URLs(e.g., file:///etc/passwd). With further chaining, this primitive can potentially lead to remote code execution (RCE). This vulnerability is fixed in 2.8.1.
CVE-2025-30065 Critical 2025-04-01 Protected by Waratek Proof of concept only Schema parsing in the parquet-avro module of Apache Parquet 1.15.0 and previous versions allows bad actors to execute arbitrary code Users are recommended to upgrade to version 1.15.1, which fixes the issue.
CVE-2024-12744 High 2024-12-24 Protected by Waratek No public exploit A SQL injection in the Amazon Redshift JDBC Driver in v2.1.0.31 allows a user to gain escalated privileges via the getSchemas, getTables, or getColumns Metadata APIs. Users should upgrade to the driver version 2.1.0.32 or revert to driver version 2.1.0.30.
CVE-2024-54140 Low 2024-12-05 No exploit published Proof of concept only sigstore-java is a sigstore java client for interacting with sigstore infrastructure. sigstore-java has insufficient verification for a situation where a bundle provides a invalid signature for a checkpoint. This bug impacts clients using any variation of KeylessVerifier.verify(). Currently checkpoints are only used to ensure the root hash of an inclusion proof was provided by the log in question. Failing to validate that means a bundle may provide an inclusion proof that doesn't actually correspond to the log in question. This may eventually lead a monitor/witness being unable to detect when a compromised logs are providing different views of themselves to different clients. There are other mechanisms right now that mitigate this, such as the signed entry timestamp. Sigstore-java currently requires a valid signed entry timestamp. By correctly verifying the signed entry timestamp we can make certain assertions about the log signing the log entry (like the log was aware of the artifact signing event and signed it). Therefore the impact on clients that are not monitors/witnesses is very low. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.
‹ prev page 2 of 2 next ›