Overview 1 match · 0 in Waratek scope · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
1match
0in Waratek scope0.0%
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
0
0.0%
Outside Waratek scope
0
0.0%
Not applicable
1
100.0%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
0
0.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
1
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
1
100.0%
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-11767 | Low | 2020-04-15 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Istio through 1.5.1 and Envoy through 1.14.1 have a data-leak issue. If there is a TCP connection (negotiated with SNI over HTTPS) to *.example.com, a request for a domain concurrently configured explicitly (e.g., abc.example.com) is sent to the server(s) listening behind *.example.com. The outcome should instead be 421 Misdirected Request. Imagine a shared caching forward proxy re-using an HTTP/2 connection for a large subnet with many users. If a victim is interacting with abc.example.com, and a server (for abc.example.com) recycles the TCP connection to the forward proxy, the victim's browser may suddenly start sending sensitive data to a *.example.com server. This occurs because the forward proxy between the victim and the origin server reuses connections (which obeys the specification), but neither Istio nor Envoy corrects this by sending a 421 error. Similarly, this behavior voids the security model browsers have put in place between domains. |