Overview 228 matches · 2 in Waratek scope · 1 protected · 10 exploited · 8 CISA KEV · 17 public PoC · 9 EPSS ≥ 0.5
228matches
2in Waratek scope0.9%
1protected0.4%
10exploited4.4%
8CISA KEV3.5%
17public PoC7.5%
9EPSS ≥ 0.53.9%
Protected by Waratek
1
0.4%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
1
0.4%
No exploit published
0
0.0%
Outside Waratek scope
1
0.4%
Not applicable
225
98.7%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
1
0.4%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
227
99.6%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
split by
peak 51 / year
20098
Not applicable8
High3
Medium5
not blocked8
Working exploit published4
No public exploit4
20101
Not applicable1
High1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20112
Not applicable2
Medium2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
20120
20130
20141
Not applicable1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20150
20160
20173
Not applicable3
Critical2
High1
not blocked3
Working exploit published1
No public exploit2
20182
Outside Waratek scope1
Not applicable1
Critical1
Medium1
not blocked2
Exploited1
No public exploit1
20190
202017
Not applicable17
Critical3
High8
Medium6
not blocked17
Exploited1
Working exploit published1
No public exploit15
202149
Protected by Waratek1
Not applicable48
Critical6
High32
Medium11
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked48
Exploited3
Proof of concept only1
Forecast only1
No public exploit44
202216
Not applicable16
Critical1
High8
Medium6
Low1
not blocked16
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit15
202324
Mitigation candidate1
Not applicable23
Critical2
High13
Medium9
not blocked24
Exploited3
No public exploit21
202419
Not applicable19
Critical1
High11
Medium6
Low1
not blocked19
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit18
202535
Not applicable35
High29
Medium6
not blocked35
Proof of concept only2
No public exploit33
202651
Not applicable51
Critical1
High40
Medium8
Low2
not blocked51
Exploited2
No public exploit49
201020122014201620182020202220242026
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-5943 | Medium | 2020-11-05 | Not applicable | No public exploit | In versions 14.1.0-14.1.0.1 and 14.1.2.5-14.1.2.7, when a BIG-IP object is created or listed through the REST interface, the protected fields are obfuscated in the REST response, not protected via a SecureVault cryptogram as TMSH does. One example of protected fields is the GTM monitor password. |
| CVE-2020-5939 | High | 2020-11-05 | Not applicable | No public exploit | In versions 16.0.0-16.0.0.1, 15.1.0-15.1.0.3, 15.0.0-15.0.1.3, 14.1.0-14.1.2.6, and 13.1.0-13.1.3.4, BIG-IP Virtual Edition (VE) systems on VMware, with an Intel-based 85299 Network Interface Controller (NIC) card and Single Root I/O Virtualization (SR-IOV) enabled on vSphere, may fail and leave the Traffic Management Microkernel (TMM) in a state where it cannot transmit traffic. |
| CVE-2020-5938 | Medium | 2020-10-29 | Not applicable | No public exploit | On BIG-IP 13.1.0-13.1.3.4, 12.1.0-12.1.5.2, and 11.6.1-11.6.5.2, when negotiating IPSec tunnels with configured, authenticated peers, the peer may negotiate a different key length than the BIG-IP configuration would otherwise allow. |
| CVE-2020-5929 | Medium | 2020-09-25 | Not applicable | No public exploit | In versions 13.0.0-13.0.0 HF2, 12.1.0-12.1.2 HF1, and 11.6.1-11.6.2, BIG-IP platforms with Cavium Nitrox SSL hardware acceleration cards, a Virtual Server configured with a Client SSL profile, and using Anonymous (ADH) or Ephemeral (DHE) Diffie-Hellman key exchange and Single DH use option not enabled in the options list may be vulnerable to crafted SSL/TLS Handshakes that may result with a PMS (Pre-Master Secret) that starts in a 0 byte and may lead to a recovery of plaintext messages as BIG-IP TLS/SSL ADH/DHE sends different error messages acting as an oracle. Similar error messages when PMS starts with 0 byte coupled with very precise timing measurement observation may also expose this vulnerability. |
| CVE-2020-5922 | High | 2020-08-26 | Not applicable | No public exploit | In BIG-IP versions 15.0.0-15.1.0.4, 14.1.0-14.1.2.6, 13.1.0-13.1.3.3, 12.1.0-12.1.5.1, and 11.6.1-11.6.5.2, iControl REST does not implement Cross Site Request Forgery protections for users which make use of Basic Authentication in a web browser. |
| CVE-2020-5913 | High | 2020-08-26 | Not applicable | No public exploit | In versions 15.0.0-15.1.0.1, 14.1.0-14.1.2.3, 13.1.0-13.1.3.4, 12.1.0-12.1.5.1, and 11.6.1-11.6.5.2, the BIG-IP Client or Server SSL profile ignores revoked certificates, even when a valid CRL is present. This impacts SSL/TLS connections and may result in a man-in-the-middle attack on the connections. |
| CVE-2020-5912 | High | 2020-08-26 | Not applicable | No public exploit | In BIG-IP versions 15.1.0-15.1.0.4, 15.0.0-15.0.1.3, 14.1.0-14.1.2.3, 13.1.0-13.1.3.3, 12.1.0-12.1.5.1, and 11.6.1-11.6.5.1, the restjavad process's dump command does not follow current best coding practices and may overwrite arbitrary files. |
| CVE-2020-5902 | Critical | 2020-07-01 | Not applicable | Exploited | In BIG-IP versions 15.0.0-15.1.0.3, 14.1.0-14.1.2.5, 13.1.0-13.1.3.3, 12.1.0-12.1.5.1, and 11.6.1-11.6.5.1, the Traffic Management User Interface (TMUI), also referred to as the Configuration utility, has a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in undisclosed pages. |
| CVE-2020-14210 | Medium | 2020-06-16 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in MONITORAPP WAF in which script can be executed when responding to Request URL information. It provides a function to response to Request URL information when blocking. |
| CVE-2014-2595 | Critical | 2020-02-12 | Not applicable | Working exploit published | Barracuda Web Application Firewall (WAF) 7.8.1.013 allows remote attackers to bypass authentication by leveraging a permanent authentication token obtained from a query string. |
| CVE-2011-5266 | Critical | 2020-01-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Imperva SecureSphere Web Application Firewall (WAF) before 12-august-2010 allows SQL injection filter bypass. |
| CVE-2018-15904 | Critical | 2018-08-27 | Not applicable | No public exploit | A10 ACOS Web Application Firewall (WAF) 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 before 2.7.2-P12, 4.1.0 before 4.1.0-P11, 4.1.1 before 4.1.1-P8, and 4.1.2 before 4.1.2-P4 mishandles the configured rules for blocking SQL injection attacks, aka A10-2017-0008. |
| CVE-2018-3639 | Medium | 2018-05-22 | Outside Waratek scope | Exploited | Systems with microprocessors utilizing speculative execution and speculative execution of memory reads before the addresses of all prior memory writes are known may allow unauthorized disclosure of information to an attacker with local user access via a side-channel analysis, aka Speculative Store Bypass (SSB), Variant 4. |
| CVE-2017-15524 | Critical | 2017-12-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | The Application Firewall Pack (AFP, aka Web Application Firewall) component on Kemp Load Balancer devices with software before 7.2.40.1 allows a Security Feature Bypass via an HTTP POST request. |
| CVE-2017-14706 | Critical | 2017-09-22 | Not applicable | Working exploit published | DenyAll WAF before 6.4.1 allows unauthenticated remote attackers to obtain authentication information by making a typeOf=debug request to /webservices/download/index.php, and then reading the iToken field in the reply. This affects DenyAll i-Suite LTS 5.5.0 through 5.5.12, i-Suite 5.6, Web Application Firewall 5.7, and Web Application Firewall 6.x before 6.4.1, with On Premises or AWS/Azure cloud deployments. |
| CVE-2017-14705 | High | 2017-09-22 | Not applicable | No public exploit | DenyAll WAF before 6.4.1 allows unauthenticated remote command execution via TCP port 3001 because shell metacharacters can be inserted into the type parameter to the tailDateFile function in /webservices/stream/tail.php. An iToken authentication parameter is required but can be obtained by exploiting CVE-2017-14706. This affects DenyAll i-Suite LTS 5.5.0 through 5.5.12, i-Suite 5.6, Web Application Firewall 5.7, and Web Application Firewall 6.x before 6.4.1, with On Premises or AWS/Azure cloud deployments. |
| CVE-2011-4887 | Medium | 2014-09-11 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Violations Table in the management GUI in the MX Management Server in Imperva SecureSphere Web Application Firewall (WAF) 9.0 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the username field. |
| CVE-2011-3140 | Medium | 2011-08-15 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Web Application Firewall, as used on the G400 IPS-G400-IB-1 and GX4004 IPS-GX4004-IB-2 appliances with update 31.030, does not properly handle query strings with multiple instances of the same parameter, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended intrusion prevention by dividing a dangerous parameter value into substrings, as demonstrated by a SQL statement that is split across multiple iid parameters and then sent to a .aspx file on an IIS web server. |
| CVE-2011-0767 | Medium | 2011-06-06 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the management GUI in the MX Management Server in Imperva SecureSphere Web Application Firewall 6.2, 7.x, and 8.x allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via an HTTP request to a firewalled server, aka Bug ID 31759. |
| CVE-2010-1329 | High | 2010-04-15 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Imperva SecureSphere Web Application Firewall and Database Firewall 5.0.0.5082 through 7.0.0.7078 allow remote attackers to bypass intrusion-prevention functionality via a request that has an appended long string containing an unspecified manipulation. |
| CVE-2009-3457 | Medium | 2009-09-29 | Not applicable | Working exploit published | Cisco ACE XML Gateway (AXG) and ACE Web Application Firewall (WAF) before 6.1 allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via an HTTP request that lacks a handler, as demonstrated by (1) an OPTIONS request or (2) a crafted GET request, leading to a Message-handling Errors message containing a certain client intranet IP address, aka Bug ID CSCtb82159. |
| CVE-2009-2300 | High | 2009-07-02 | Not applicable | No public exploit | The management interface in the phion airlock Web Application Firewall (WAF) 4.1-10.41 does not properly handle CGI requests that specify large width and height parameters for an image, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands or cause a denial of service (resource consumption) via a crafted request. |
| CVE-2009-2299 | Medium | 2009-07-02 | Not applicable | No public exploit | The Artofdefence Hyperguard Web Application Firewall (WAF) module before 2.5.5-11635, 3.0 before 3.0.3-11636, and 3.1 before 3.1.1-11637, a module for the Apache HTTP Server, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via an HTTP request with a large Content-Length value but no POST data. |
| CVE-2009-1745 | High | 2009-05-21 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Armorlogic Profense Web Application Firewall before 2.2.22, and 2.4.x before 2.4.4, has a default root password hash, and permits password-based root logins over SSH, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain access. |
| CVE-2009-1594 | High | 2009-05-21 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Armorlogic Profense Web Application Firewall before 2.2.22, and 2.4.x before 2.4.4, does not properly implement the "positive model," which allows remote attackers to bypass certain protection mechanisms via a %0A (encoded newline), as demonstrated by a %0A in a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack URL. |
| CVE-2009-1593 | Medium | 2009-05-21 | Not applicable | Working exploit published | Armorlogic Profense Web Application Firewall before 2.2.22, and 2.4.x before 2.4.4, does not properly implement the "negative model," which allows remote attackers to conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via a modified end tag of a SCRIPT element. |
| CVE-2009-0468 | Medium | 2009-02-10 | Not applicable | Working exploit published | Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in ajax.html in Profense Web Application Firewall 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) shutdown the server, (2) send ping packets, (3) enable network services, (4) configure a proxy server, and (5) modify other settings via parameters in the query string. |
| CVE-2009-0467 | Medium | 2009-02-10 | Not applicable | Working exploit published | Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in proxy.html in Profense Web Application Firewall 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the proxy parameter in a deny_log manage action. |