Oracle Critical Patch Update January 2018
Released January 2018 · Oracle's advisory ↗ · ← Critical Patch Update, October 2017 · Critical Patch Update, April 2018 →
197 CVEs in this release, one square each
By status
16Protected by Waratek1Mitigation candidate94No exploit published25Outside Waratek scope61Not applicable
3Exploited, marked by the ring
No exploit published. For 94 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 14 matches · 3 in Waratek scope · 3 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 2 public PoC · 4 EPSS ≥ 0.5
14matches
3in Waratek scope21.4%
3protected21.4%
0exploited0.0%
0CISA KEV0.0%
2public PoC14.3%
4EPSS ≥ 0.528.6%
Protected by Waratek
3
21.4%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
0
0.0%
Outside Waratek scope
5
35.7%
Not applicable
6
42.9%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
3
21.4%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
11
78.6%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
0
0.0%
Working exploit published
2
14.3%
Proof of concept only
0
0.0%
Forecast only
2
14.3%
No public exploit
10
71.4%
split by
peak 4 / quarter
Q1 131
Outside Waratek scope1
Medium1
not blocked1
Forecast only1
Q2 130
Q3 130
Q4 130
Q1 140
Q2 140
Q3 140
Q4 140
Q1 150
Q2 150
Q3 151
Outside Waratek scope1
Critical1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
Q4 151
Outside Waratek scope1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
Q1 161
Not applicable1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
Q2 161
Not applicable1
Medium1
not blocked1
Working exploit published1
Q3 164
Protected by Waratek1
Outside Waratek scope2
Not applicable1
High4
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked3
Forecast only1
No public exploit3
Q4 161
Protected by Waratek1
High1
blocked by ARMR today1
No public exploit1
Q1 170
Q2 174
Protected by Waratek1
Not applicable3
Critical2
Medium2
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked3
Working exploit published1
No public exploit3
Q2 13Q4 13Q2 14Q4 14Q2 15Q4 15Q2 16Q4 16Q2 17
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2017-9072 | Medium | 2017-05-18 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Two CalendarXP products have XSS in common parts of HTML files. CalendarXP FlatCalendarXP through 9.9.290 has XSS in iflateng.htm and nflateng.htm. CalendarXP PopCalendarXP through 9.8.308 has XSS in ipopeng.htm and npopeng.htm. |
| CVE-2017-5461 | Critical | 2017-05-11 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Mozilla Network Security Services (NSS) before 3.21.4, 3.22.x through 3.28.x before 3.28.4, 3.29.x before 3.29.5, and 3.30.x before 3.30.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds write) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging incorrect base64 operations. |
| 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-2017-5645 | Critical | 2017-04-17 | Protected by Waratek | Working exploit published | In Apache Log4j 2.x before 2.8.2, when using the TCP socket server or UDP socket server to receive serialized log events from another application, a specially crafted binary payload can be sent that, when deserialized, can execute arbitrary code. |
| CVE-2016-9878 | High | 2016-12-29 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | An issue was discovered in Pivotal Spring Framework before 3.2.18, 4.2.x before 4.2.9, and 4.3.x before 4.3.5. Paths provided to the ResourceServlet were not properly sanitized and as a result exposed to directory traversal attacks. |
| CVE-2016-2179 | High | 2016-09-16 | Not applicable | No public exploit | The DTLS implementation in OpenSSL before 1.1.0 does not properly restrict the lifetime of queue entries associated with unused out-of-order messages, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) by maintaining many crafted DTLS sessions simultaneously, related to d1_lib.c, statem_dtls.c, statem_lib.c, and statem_srvr.c. |
| CVE-2016-0635 | High | 2016-07-21 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | Unspecified vulnerability in the Enterprise Manager Ops Center component in Oracle Enterprise Manager Grid Control 12.1.4, 12.2.2, and 12.3.2; the Oracle Health Sciences Information Manager component in Oracle Health Sciences Applications 1.2.8.3, 2.0.2.3, and 3.0.1.0; the Oracle Healthcare Master Person Index component in Oracle Health Sciences Applications 2.0.12, 3.0.0, and 4.0.1; the Oracle Documaker component in Oracle Insurance Applications before 12.5; the Oracle Insurance Calculation Engine component in Oracle Insurance Applications 9.7.1, 10.1.2, and 10.2.2; the Oracle Insurance Policy Administration J2EE and Oracle Insurance Rules Palette components in Oracle Insurance Applications 9.6.1, 9.7.1, 10.0.1, 10.1.2, 10.2.0, and 10.2.2; the Oracle Retail Integration Bus component in Oracle Retail Applications 15.0; the Oracle Retail Order Broker component in Oracle Retail Applications 5.1, 5.2, and 15.0; the Primavera Contract Management component in Oracle Primavera Products Suite 14.2; the Primavera P6 Enterprise Project Portfolio Management component in Oracle Primavera Products Suite 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 15.1, 15.2, and 16.1; the Oracle Financial Services Analytical Applications Infrastructure component in Oracle Financial Services Applications 8.0.0, 8.0.1, 8.0.2, and 8.0.3; the Oracle Commerce Guided Search / Oracle Commerce Experience Manager component in Oracle Commerce 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 11.0, 11.1, and 11.2; the Oracle Agile PLM component in Oracle Supply Chain Products Suite 9.3.4 and 9.3.5; the Oracle Communications BRM - Elastic Charging Engine 11.2.0.0.0 and 11.3.0.0.0; the Oracle Enterprise Repository Enterprise Repository 12.1.3.0.0; the Oracle Financial Services Behavior Detection Platform 8.0.1 and 8.0.2; the Oracle Hyperion Essbase 12.2.1.1; the Oracle Tuxedo System and Applications Monitor (TSAM) 11.1.1.2.0, 11.1.1.2.1, 11.1.1.2.1, 12.1.1.1.0, 12.1.3.0.0, and 12.2.2.0.0; the Oracle Communications WebRTC Session Controller component of Oracle Communications Applications (subcomponent: Security (Spring)) 7.0, 7.1 and 7.2; the Oracle Endeca Information Discovery Integrator 3.2; the Converged Commerce component of Oracle Retail Applications 16.0.1; the Oracle Identity Manager 11.1.2.3.0; Oracle Enterprise Manager for MySQL Database 12.1.0.4; Oracle Retail Invoice Matching 12.0, 13.0, 13.1, 13.2, 14.0, and 14.1; Oracle Communications Performance Intelligence Center (PIC) Software Prior to 10.2.1 and the Oracle Knowledge component of Oracle Siebel CRM (subcomponent: AnswerFlow (Spring Framework)) version 8.5.1.0 - 8.5.1.7 and 8.6.0 allows remote authenticated users to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability via unknown vectors. |
| CVE-2016-5385 | High | 2016-07-19 | Outside Waratek scope | Forecast only | PHP through 7.0.8 does not attempt to address RFC 3875 section 4.1.18 namespace conflicts and therefore does not protect applications from the presence of untrusted client data in the HTTP_PROXY environment variable, which might allow remote attackers to redirect an application's outbound HTTP traffic to an arbitrary proxy server via a crafted Proxy header in an HTTP request, as demonstrated by (1) an application that makes a getenv('HTTP_PROXY') call or (2) a CGI configuration of PHP, aka an "httpoxy" issue. |
| CVE-2016-1182 | High | 2016-07-04 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | ActionServlet.java in Apache Struts 1 1.x through 1.3.10 does not properly restrict the Validator configuration, which allows remote attackers to conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks or cause a denial of service via crafted input, a related issue to CVE-2015-0899. |
| 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-2016-0704 | Medium | 2016-03-02 | Not applicable | No public exploit | An oracle protection mechanism in the get_client_master_key function in s2_srvr.c in the SSLv2 implementation in OpenSSL before 0.9.8zf, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0r, 1.0.1 before 1.0.1m, and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2a overwrites incorrect MASTER-KEY bytes during use of export cipher suites, which makes it easier for remote attackers to decrypt TLS ciphertext data by leveraging a Bleichenbacher RSA padding oracle, a related issue to CVE-2016-0800. |
| 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-2015-3253 | Critical | 2015-08-13 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | The MethodClosure class in runtime/MethodClosure.java in Apache Groovy 1.7.0 through 2.4.3 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service via a crafted serialized object. |
| CVE-2013-2566 | Medium | 2013-03-15 | Outside Waratek scope | Forecast only | The RC4 algorithm, as used in the TLS protocol and SSL protocol, has many single-byte biases, which makes it easier for remote attackers to conduct plaintext-recovery attacks via statistical analysis of ciphertext in a large number of sessions that use the same plaintext. |