WaratekVRT Sign in
Reset
More filters (2)
Columns
Published to 2011-05-31✕Vendor apache✕
Overview 12 matches · 3 protected · 1 exploited · 1 CISA KEV · 4 public PoC · 2 EPSS ≥ 0.5
12matches 3protected25.0% 1exploited8.3% 1CISA KEV8.3% 4public PoC33.3% 2EPSS ≥ 0.516.7%
Protected by Waratek 3 25.0% Rule in development 0 0.0% Mitigation candidate 3 25.0% No exploit published 6 50.0%
Critical 0 0.0% High 12 100.0% Medium 0 0.0% Low 0 0.0% None 0 0.0% Unknown 0 0.0%
blocked by ARMR today 3 25.0% partly blocked 0 0.0% not blocked 9 75.0% not established 0 0.0% unrecorded 0 0.0%
Exploited 1 8.3% Working exploit published 4 33.3% Proof of concept only 0 0.0% Forecast only 0 0.0% No public exploit 7 58.3%
split by peak 3 / year
No exploit published: 6Mitigation candidate: 3Protected by Waratek: 3 High: 12 not blocked: 9blocked by ARMR today: 3 No public exploit: 7Working exploit published: 4Exploited: 1
20011 No exploit published1 High1 not blocked1 No public exploit1 20023 Mitigation candidate2 No exploit published1 High3 not blocked3 Working exploit published2 No public exploit1 20031 No exploit published1 High1 not blocked1 No public exploit1 20040 20051 No exploit published1 High1 not blocked1 No public exploit1 20062 Protected by Waratek2 High2 blocked by ARMR today2 Exploited1 No public exploit1 20071 No exploit published1 High1 not blocked1 No public exploit1 20080 20092 Protected by Waratek1 Mitigation candidate1 High2 blocked by ARMR today1 not blocked1 Working exploit published2 20101 No exploit published1 High1 not blocked1 No public exploit1
2001200220032004200520062007200820092010
12 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-2010-1632 High 2010-06-22 No exploit published No public exploit Apache Axis2 before 1.5.2, as used in IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) 7.0 through 7.0.0.12, IBM Feature Pack for Web Services 6.1.0.9 through 6.1.0.32, IBM Feature Pack for Web 2.0 1.0.1.0, Apache Synapse, Apache ODE, Apache Tuscany, Apache Geronimo, and other products, does not properly reject DTDs in SOAP messages, which allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files, send HTTP requests to intranet servers, or cause a denial of service (CPU and memory consumption) via a crafted DTD, as demonstrated by an entity declaration in a request to the Synapse SimpleStockQuoteService.
CVE-2009-3548 High 2009-11-12 Mitigation candidate Working exploit published The Windows installer for Apache Tomcat 6.0.0 through 6.0.20, 5.5.0 through 5.5.28, and possibly earlier versions uses a blank default password for the administrative user, which allows remote attackers to gain privileges.
CVE-2008-5518 High 2009-04-17 Protected by Waratek Working exploit published Multiple directory traversal vulnerabilities in the web administration console in Apache Geronimo Application Server 2.1 through 2.1.3 on Windows allow remote attackers to upload files to arbitrary directories via directory traversal sequences in the (1) group, (2) artifact, (3) version, or (4) fileType parameter to console/portal//Services/Repository (aka the Services/Repository portlet); the (5) createDB parameter to console/portal/Embedded DB/DB Manager (aka the Embedded DB/DB Manager portlet); or the (6) filename parameter to the createKeystore script in the Security/Keystores portlet.
CVE-2006-7197 High 2007-04-25 No exploit published No public exploit The AJP connector in Apache Tomcat 5.5.15 uses an incorrect length for chunks, which can cause a buffer over-read in the ajp_process_callback in mod_jk, which allows remote attackers to read portions of sensitive memory.
CVE-2006-1547 High 2006-03-30 Protected by Waratek Exploited ActionForm in Apache Software Foundation (ASF) Struts before 1.2.9 with BeanUtils 1.7 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a multipart/form-data encoded form with a parameter name that references the public getMultipartRequestHandler method, which provides further access to elements in the CommonsMultipartRequestHandler implementation and BeanUtils.
CVE-2006-1546 High 2006-03-30 Protected by Waratek No public exploit Apache Software Foundation (ASF) Struts before 1.2.9 allows remote attackers to bypass validation via a request with a 'org.apache.struts.taglib.html.Constants.CANCEL' parameter, which causes the action to be canceled but would not be detected from applications that do not use the isCancelled check.
CVE-2005-4836 High 2005-12-31 No exploit published No public exploit The HTTP/1.1 connector in Apache Tomcat 4.1.15 through 4.1.40 does not reject NULL bytes in a URL when allowLinking is configured, which allows remote attackers to read JSP source files and obtain sensitive information.
CVE-2002-1394 High 2003-01-17 No exploit published No public exploit Apache Tomcat 4.0.5 and earlier, when using both the invoker servlet and the default servlet, allows remote attackers to read source code for server files or bypass certain protections, a variant of CAN-2002-1148.
CVE-2002-2272 High 2002-12-31 Mitigation candidate Working exploit published Tomcat 4.0 through 4.1.12, using mod_jk 1.2.1 module on Apache 1.3 through 1.3.27, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (desynchronized communications) via an HTTP GET request with a Transfer-Encoding chunked field with invalid values.
CVE-2002-0493 High 2002-08-12 No exploit published No public exploit Apache Tomcat may be started without proper security settings if errors are encountered while reading the web.xml file, which could allow attackers to bypass intended restrictions.
CVE-2002-0682 High 2002-07-23 Mitigation candidate Working exploit published Cross-site scripting vulnerability in Apache Tomcat 4.0.3 allows remote attackers to execute script as other web users via script in a URL with the /servlet/ mapping, which does not filter the script when an exception is thrown by the servlet.
CVE-2001-1563 High 2001-12-31 No exploit published No public exploit Unknown vulnerability in Tomcat 3.2.1 running on HP Secure OS for Linux 1.0 allows attackers to access servlet resources. NOTE: due to the vagueness of the vendor advisory, it is not clear whether this issue is already covered by other CVE identifiers.