Overview 15 matches · 0 in Waratek scope · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 1 public PoC · 1 EPSS ≥ 0.5
15matches
0in Waratek scope0.0%
0protected0.0%
0exploited0.0%
0CISA KEV0.0%
1public PoC6.7%
1EPSS ≥ 0.56.7%
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
15
100.0%
Not applicable
0
0.0%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
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
1
6.7%
Proof of concept only
0
0.0%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
14
93.3%
split by
peak 3 / year
20011
Outside Waratek scope1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20020
20030
20040
20050
20060
20071
Outside Waratek scope1
Medium1
not blocked1
Working exploit published1
20080
20090
20100
20110
20120
20133
Outside Waratek scope3
Medium2
Low1
not blocked3
No public exploit3
20142
Outside Waratek scope2
Medium2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
20151
Outside Waratek scope1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20162
Outside Waratek scope2
High2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
20172
Outside Waratek scope2
High1
Medium1
not blocked2
No public exploit2
20180
20190
20201
Outside Waratek scope1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20210
20220
20230
20240
20252
Outside Waratek scope2
Critical2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
2001200320052007200920112013201520172019202120232025
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-55754 | Critical | 2025-10-27 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | Improper Neutralization of Escape, Meta, or Control Sequences vulnerability in Apache Tomcat. Tomcat did not escape ANSI escape sequences in log messages. If Tomcat was running in a console on a Windows operating system, and the console supported ANSI escape sequences, it was possible for an attacker to use a specially crafted URL to inject ANSI escape sequences to manipulate the console and the clipboard and attempt to trick an administrator into running an attacker controlled command. While no attack vector was found, it may have been possible to mount this attack on other operating systems. This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.10, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.44, from 9.0.40 through 9.0.108. The following versions were EOL at the time the CVE was created but are known to be affected: 8.5.60 though 8.5.100. Other, older, EOL versions may also be affected. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.11 or later, 10.1.45 or later or 9.0.109 or later, which fix the issue. |
| CVE-2025-31651 | Critical | 2025-04-28 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | Improper Neutralization of Escape, Meta, or Control Sequences vulnerability in Apache Tomcat. For a subset of unlikely rewrite rule configurations, it was possible for a specially crafted request to bypass some rewrite rules. If those rewrite rules effectively enforced security constraints, those constraints could be bypassed. This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.5, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.39, from 9.0.0.M1 through 9.0.102. The following versions were EOL at the time the CVE was created but are known to be affected: 8.5.0 though 8.5.100. Other, older, EOL versions may also be affected. Users are recommended to upgrade to version [FIXED_VERSION], which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2019-17569 | Medium | 2020-02-24 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | The refactoring present in Apache Tomcat 9.0.28 to 9.0.30, 8.5.48 to 8.5.50 and 7.0.98 to 7.0.99 introduced a regression. The result of the regression was that invalid Transfer-Encoding headers were incorrectly processed leading to a possibility of HTTP Request Smuggling if Tomcat was located behind a reverse proxy that incorrectly handled the invalid Transfer-Encoding header in a particular manner. Such a reverse proxy is considered unlikely. |
| CVE-2016-0762 | Medium | 2017-08-10 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | The Realm implementations in Apache Tomcat versions 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 did not process the supplied password if the supplied user name did not exist. This made a timing attack possible to determine valid user names. Note that the default configuration includes the LockOutRealm which makes exploitation of this vulnerability harder. |
| CVE-2017-5664 | High | 2017-06-06 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | The error page mechanism of the Java Servlet Specification requires that, when an error occurs and an error page is configured for the error that occurred, the original request and response are forwarded to the error page. This means that the request is presented to the error page with the original HTTP method. If the error page is a static file, expected behaviour is to serve content of the file as if processing a GET request, regardless of the actual HTTP method. The Default Servlet in Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M20, 8.5.0 to 8.5.14, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.43 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.77 did not do this. Depending on the original request this could lead to unexpected and undesirable results for static error pages including, if the DefaultServlet is configured to permit writes, the replacement or removal of the custom error page. Notes for other user provided error pages: (1) Unless explicitly coded otherwise, JSPs ignore the HTTP method. JSPs used as error pages must must ensure that they handle any error dispatch as a GET request, regardless of the actual method. (2) By default, the response generated by a Servlet does depend on the HTTP method. Custom Servlets used as error pages must ensure that they handle any error dispatch as a GET request, regardless of the actual method. |
| CVE-2016-0714 | High | 2016-02-25 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | The session-persistence implementation in Apache Tomcat 6.x before 6.0.45, 7.x before 7.0.68, 8.x before 8.0.31, and 9.x before 9.0.0.M2 mishandles session attributes, which allows remote authenticated users to bypass intended SecurityManager restrictions and execute arbitrary code in a privileged context via a web application that places a crafted object in a session. |
| CVE-2015-5346 | High | 2016-02-25 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | Session fixation vulnerability in Apache Tomcat 7.x before 7.0.66, 8.x before 8.0.30, and 9.x before 9.0.0.M2, when different session settings are used for deployments of multiple versions of the same web application, might allow remote attackers to hijack web sessions by leveraging use of a requestedSessionSSL field for an unintended request, related to CoyoteAdapter.java and Request.java. |
| CVE-2014-0227 | Medium | 2015-02-16 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | java/org/apache/coyote/http11/filters/ChunkedInputFilter.java in Apache Tomcat 6.x before 6.0.42, 7.x before 7.0.55, and 8.x before 8.0.9 does not properly handle attempts to continue reading data after an error has occurred, which allows remote attackers to conduct HTTP request smuggling attacks or cause a denial of service (resource consumption) by streaming data with malformed chunked transfer coding. |
| CVE-2014-0033 | Medium | 2014-02-26 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | org/apache/catalina/connector/CoyoteAdapter.java in Apache Tomcat 6.0.33 through 6.0.37 does not consider the disableURLRewriting setting when handling a session ID in a URL, which allows remote attackers to conduct session fixation attacks via a crafted URL. |
| CVE-2013-4286 | Medium | 2014-02-26 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | Apache Tomcat before 6.0.39, 7.x before 7.0.47, and 8.x before 8.0.0-RC3, when an HTTP connector or AJP connector is used, does not properly handle certain inconsistent HTTP request headers, which allows remote attackers to trigger incorrect identification of a request's length and conduct request-smuggling attacks via (1) multiple Content-Length headers or (2) a Content-Length header and a "Transfer-Encoding: chunked" header. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2005-2090. |
| CVE-2013-2071 | Low | 2013-06-01 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | java/org/apache/catalina/core/AsyncContextImpl.java in Apache Tomcat 7.x before 7.0.40 does not properly handle the throwing of a RuntimeException in an AsyncListener in an application, which allows context-dependent attackers to obtain sensitive request information intended for other applications in opportunistic circumstances via an application that records the requests that it processes. |
| CVE-2013-2067 | Medium | 2013-06-01 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | java/org/apache/catalina/authenticator/FormAuthenticator.java in the form authentication feature in Apache Tomcat 6.0.21 through 6.0.36 and 7.x before 7.0.33 does not properly handle the relationships between authentication requirements and sessions, which allows remote attackers to inject a request into a session by sending this request during completion of the login form, a variant of a session fixation attack. |
| CVE-2012-3544 | Medium | 2013-06-01 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | Apache Tomcat 6.x before 6.0.37 and 7.x before 7.0.30 does not properly handle chunk extensions in chunked transfer coding, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service by streaming data. |
| CVE-2007-0450 | Medium | 2007-03-16 | Outside Waratek scope | Working exploit published | Directory traversal vulnerability in Apache HTTP Server and Tomcat 5.x before 5.5.22 and 6.x before 6.0.10, when using certain proxy modules (mod_proxy, mod_rewrite, mod_jk), allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) sequence with combinations of (1) "/" (slash), (2) "\" (backslash), and (3) URL-encoded backslash (%5C) characters in the URL, which are valid separators in Tomcat but not in Apache. |
| CVE-2001-0829 | Medium | 2001-12-06 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | A cross-site scripting vulnerability in Apache Tomcat 3.2.1 allows a malicious webmaster to embed Javascript in a request for a .JSP file, which causes the Javascript to be inserted into an error message. |