Overview 15 matches · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
15matches
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
15
100.0%
blocked by ARMR today
0
0.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
15
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
15
100.0%
split by
peak 15 / month
May 17
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2016-3083 | High | 2017-05-30 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Apache Hive (JDBC + HiveServer2) implements SSL for plain TCP and HTTP connections (it supports both transport modes). While validating the server's certificate during the connection setup, the client in Apache Hive before 1.2.2 and 2.0.x before 2.0.1 doesn't seem to be verifying the common name attribute of the certificate. In this way, if a JDBC client sends an SSL request to server abc.com, and the server responds with a valid certificate (certified by CA) but issued to xyz.com, the client will accept that as a valid certificate and the SSL handshake will go through. |
| CVE-2017-5646 | Medium | 2017-05-26 | No exploit published | No public exploit | For versions of Apache Knox from 0.2.0 to 0.11.0 - an authenticated user may use a specially crafted URL to impersonate another user while accessing WebHDFS through Apache Knox. This may result in escalated privileges and unauthorized data access. While this activity is audit logged and can be easily associated with the authenticated user, this is still a serious security issue. All users are recommended to upgrade to the Apache Knox 0.12.0 release. |
| CVE-2016-5007 | High | 2017-05-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Both Spring Security 3.2.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.0 and the Spring Framework 3.2.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.x, 4.2.x rely on URL pattern mappings for authorization and for mapping requests to controllers respectively. Differences in the strictness of the pattern matching mechanisms, for example with regards to space trimming in path segments, can lead Spring Security to not recognize certain paths as not protected that are in fact mapped to Spring MVC controllers that should be protected. The problem is compounded by the fact that the Spring Framework provides richer features with regards to pattern matching as well as by the fact that pattern matching in each Spring Security and the Spring Framework can easily be customized creating additional differences. |
| CVE-2016-3084 | High | 2017-05-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | The UAA reset password flow in Cloud Foundry release v236 and earlier versions, UAA release v3.3.0 and earlier versions, all versions of Login-server, UAA release v10 and earlier versions and Pivotal Elastic Runtime versions prior to 1.7.2 is vulnerable to a brute force attack due to multiple active codes at a given time. This vulnerability is applicable only when using the UAA internal user store for authentication. Deployments enabled for integration via SAML or LDAP are not affected. |
| CVE-2015-5211 | Critical | 2017-05-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Under some situations, the Spring Framework 4.2.0 to 4.2.1, 4.0.0 to 4.1.7, 3.2.0 to 3.2.14 and older unsupported versions is vulnerable to a Reflected File Download (RFD) attack. The attack involves a malicious user crafting a URL with a batch script extension that results in the response being downloaded rather than rendered and also includes some input reflected in the response. |
| CVE-2015-3189 | Low | 2017-05-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | With Cloud Foundry Runtime cf-release versions v208 or earlier, UAA Standalone versions 2.2.5 or earlier and Pivotal Cloud Foundry Runtime 1.4.5 or earlier, old Password Reset Links are not expired after the user changes their current email address to a new one. This vulnerability is applicable only when using the UAA internal user store for authentication. Deployments enabled for integration via SAML or LDAP are not affected. |
| CVE-2014-3527 | Critical | 2017-05-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | When using the CAS Proxy ticket authentication from Spring Security 3.1 to 3.2.4 a malicious CAS Service could trick another CAS Service into authenticating a proxy ticket that was not associated. This is due to the fact that the proxy ticket authentication uses the information from the HttpServletRequest which is populated based upon untrusted information within the HTTP request. This means if there are access control restrictions on which CAS services can authenticate to one another, those restrictions can be bypassed. If users are not using CAS Proxy tickets and not basing access control decisions based upon the CAS Service, then there is no impact to users. |
| CVE-2014-0097 | High | 2017-05-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | The ActiveDirectoryLdapAuthenticator in Spring Security 3.2.0 to 3.2.1 and 3.1.0 to 3.1.5 does not check the password length. If the directory allows anonymous binds then it may incorrectly authenticate a user who supplies an empty password. |
| CVE-2017-5657 | High | 2017-05-22 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Several REST service endpoints of Apache Archiva are not protected against Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. A malicious site opened in the same browser as the archiva site, may send an HTML response that performs arbitrary actions on archiva services, with the same rights as the active archiva session (e.g. administrator rights). |
| CVE-2014-9970 | High | 2017-05-21 | No exploit published | No public exploit | jasypt before 1.9.2 allows a timing attack against the password hash comparison. |
| CVE-2015-5241 | Medium | 2017-05-19 | No exploit published | No public exploit | After logging into the portal, the logout jsp page redirects the browser back to the login page after. It is feasible for malicious users to redirect the browser to an unintended web page in Apache jUDDI 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, and 3.1.5 when utilizing the portlets based user interface also known as 'Pluto', 'jUDDI Portal', 'UDDI Portal' or 'uddi-console'. User session data, credentials, and auth tokens are cleared before the redirect. |
| CVE-2017-7662 | High | 2017-05-16 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Apache CXF Fediz ships with an OpenId Connect (OIDC) service which has a Client Registration Service, which is a simple web application that allows clients to be created, deleted, etc. A CSRF (Cross Style Request Forgery) style vulnerability has been found in this web application in Apache CXF Fediz prior to 1.4.0 and 1.3.2, meaning that a malicious web application could create new clients, or reset secrets, etc, after the admin user has logged on to the client registration service and the session is still active. |
| CVE-2017-7661 | High | 2017-05-16 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Apache CXF Fediz ships with a number of container-specific plugins to enable WS-Federation for applications. A CSRF (Cross Style Request Forgery) style vulnerability has been found in the Spring 2, Spring 3, Jetty 8 and Jetty 9 plugins in Apache CXF Fediz prior to 1.4.0, 1.3.2 and 1.2.4. |
| CVE-2016-8741 | High | 2017-05-15 | No exploit published | No public exploit | The Apache Qpid Broker for Java can be configured to use different so called AuthenticationProviders to handle user authentication. Among the choices are the SCRAM-SHA-1 and SCRAM-SHA-256 AuthenticationProvider types. It was discovered that these AuthenticationProviders in Apache Qpid Broker for Java 6.0.x before 6.0.6 and 6.1.x before 6.1.1 prematurely terminate the SCRAM SASL negotiation if the provided user name does not exist thus allowing remote attacker to determine the existence of user accounts. The Vulnerability does not apply to AuthenticationProviders other than SCRAM-SHA-1 and SCRAM-SHA-256. |
| CVE-2017-1137 | High | 2017-05-10 | No exploit published | No public exploit | IBM WebSphere Application Server 8.0 and 8.5.5 could provide weaker than expected security. A remote attacker could exploit this weakness to obtain sensitive information and gain unauthorized access to the admin console. IBM X-Force ID: 121549. |