Oracle Critical Patch Update July 2017
Released July 2017 · Oracle's advisory ↗ · ← Critical Patch Update, April 2017 · Critical Patch Update, October 2017 →
272 CVEs in this release, one square each
By status
15Protected by Waratek3Mitigation candidate131No exploit published30Outside Waratek scope93Not applicable
3Exploited, marked by the ring
No exploit published. For 126 of them, Oracle's security advisory is the source of public detail.
Protected by Waratek. Waratek RASP can block exploitation of these on systems that have not applied the patch yet.
Overview 4 matches · 0 in Waratek scope · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 1 public PoC · 1 EPSS ≥ 0.5
4matches
0in Waratek scope0.0%
0protected0.0%
0exploited0.0%
0CISA KEV0.0%
1public PoC25.0%
1EPSS ≥ 0.525.0%
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
2
50.0%
Not applicable
2
50.0%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
0
0.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
4
100.0%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
0
0.0%
Working exploit published
1
25.0%
Proof of concept only
0
0.0%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
3
75.0%
split by
peak 1 / quarter
Q1 151
Outside Waratek scope1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
Q2 150
Q3 150
Q4 151
Outside Waratek scope1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
Q1 160
Q2 161
Not applicable1
Medium1
not blocked1
Working exploit published1
Q3 160
Q4 160
Q1 170
Q2 171
Not applicable1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
Q1 15Q2 15Q3 15Q4 15Q1 16Q2 16Q3 16Q4 16Q1 17Q2 17
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2017-3732 | Medium | 2017-05-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | There is a carry propagating bug in the x86_64 Montgomery squaring procedure in OpenSSL 1.0.2 before 1.0.2k and 1.1.0 before 1.1.0d. No EC algorithms are affected. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA and DSA as a result of this defect would be very difficult to perform and are not believed likely. Attacks against DH are considered just feasible (although very difficult) because most of the work necessary to deduce information about a private key may be performed offline. The amount of resources required for such an attack would be very significant and likely only accessible to a limited number of attackers. An attacker would additionally need online access to an unpatched system using the target private key in a scenario with persistent DH parameters and a private key that is shared between multiple clients. For example this can occur by default in OpenSSL DHE based SSL/TLS ciphersuites. Note: This issue is very similar to CVE-2015-3193 but must be treated as a separate problem. |
| CVE-2016-2107 | Medium | 2016-05-05 | Not applicable | Working exploit published | The AES-NI implementation in OpenSSL before 1.0.1t and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2h does not consider memory allocation during a certain padding check, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive cleartext information via a padding-oracle attack against an AES CBC session. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incorrect fix for CVE-2013-0169. |
| CVE-2015-7940 | Medium | 2015-11-09 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | The Bouncy Castle Java library before 1.51 does not validate a point is withing the elliptic curve, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain private keys via a series of crafted elliptic curve Diffie Hellman (ECDH) key exchanges, aka an "invalid curve attack." |
| CVE-2013-2027 | Medium | 2015-02-13 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | Jython 2.2.1 uses the current umask to set the privileges of the class cache files, which allows local users to bypass intended access restrictions via unspecified vectors. |