WaratekVRT Sign in
Reset
More filters (1)
Columns
Product snap creator framework✕
Overview 3 matches · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
3matches 0protected0.0% 0exploited0.0% 0CISA KEV0.0% 0public PoC0.0% 0EPSS ≥ 0.50.0%
Protected by Waratek 0 0.0% Rule in development 0 0.0% Mitigation candidate 0 0.0% No exploit published 3 100.0%
Critical 3 100.0% High 0 0.0% Medium 0 0.0% 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 3 100.0% 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 0 0.0% No public exploit 3 100.0%
split by peak 2 / month
Aug 17Sep 17Oct 17Nov 17Dec 17Jan 18Feb 18Mar 18Apr 18May 18Jun 18
3 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-2017-7658 Critical 2018-06-26 No exploit published No public exploit In Eclipse Jetty Server, versions 9.2.x and older, 9.3.x (all non HTTP/1.x configurations), and 9.4.x (all HTTP/1.x configurations), when presented with two content-lengths headers, Jetty ignored the second. When presented with a content-length and a chunked encoding header, the content-length was ignored (as per RFC 2616). If an intermediary decided on the shorter length, but still passed on the longer body, then body content could be interpreted by Jetty as a pipelined request. If the intermediary was imposing authorization, the fake pipelined request would bypass that authorization.
CVE-2017-7657 Critical 2018-06-26 No exploit published No public exploit In Eclipse Jetty, versions 9.2.x and older, 9.3.x (all configurations), and 9.4.x (non-default configuration with RFC2616 compliance enabled), transfer-encoding chunks are handled poorly. The chunk length parsing was vulnerable to an integer overflow. Thus a large chunk size could be interpreted as a smaller chunk size and content sent as chunk body could be interpreted as a pipelined request. If Jetty was deployed behind an intermediary that imposed some authorization and that intermediary allowed arbitrarily large chunks to be passed on unchanged, then this flaw could be used to bypass the authorization imposed by the intermediary as the fake pipelined request would not be interpreted by the intermediary as a request.
CVE-2016-5018 Critical 2017-08-10 No exploit published No public exploit In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M9, 8.5.0 to 8.5.4, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.36, 7.0.0 to 7.0.70 and 6.0.0 to 6.0.45 a malicious web application was able to bypass a configured SecurityManager via a Tomcat utility method that was accessible to web applications.