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 6 matches · 3 in Waratek scope · 1 protected · 2 exploited · 1 CISA KEV · 3 public PoC · 3 EPSS ≥ 0.5
6matches
3in Waratek scope50.0%
1protected16.7%
2exploited33.3%
1CISA KEV16.7%
3public PoC50.0%
3EPSS ≥ 0.550.0%
Protected by Waratek
2
33.3%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
1
16.7%
No exploit published
0
0.0%
Outside Waratek scope
0
0.0%
Not applicable
3
50.0%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
1
16.7%
partly blocked
1
16.7%
not blocked
4
66.7%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
2
33.3%
Working exploit published
0
0.0%
Proof of concept only
1
16.7%
Forecast only
1
16.7%
No public exploit
2
33.3%
split by
peak 3 / month
Oct 173
Protected by Waratek1
Mitigation candidate1
Not applicable1
Critical1
High1
Medium1
partly blocked1
not blocked2
Exploited1
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit1
Nov 172
Protected by Waratek1
Not applicable1
Critical1
Medium1
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked1
Exploited1
No public exploit1
Dec 171
Not applicable1
Medium1
not blocked1
Forecast only1
Oct 17Nov 17Dec 17
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2017-3737 | Medium | 2017-12-07 | Not applicable | Forecast only | OpenSSL 1.0.2 (starting from version 1.0.2b) introduced an "error state" mechanism. The intent was that if a fatal error occurred during a handshake then OpenSSL would move into the error state and would immediately fail if you attempted to continue the handshake. This works as designed for the explicit handshake functions (SSL_do_handshake(), SSL_accept() and SSL_connect()), however due to a bug it does not work correctly if SSL_read() or SSL_write() is called directly. In that scenario, if the handshake fails then a fatal error will be returned in the initial function call. If SSL_read()/SSL_write() is subsequently called by the application for the same SSL object then it will succeed and the data is passed without being decrypted/encrypted directly from the SSL/TLS record layer. In order to exploit this issue an application bug would have to be present that resulted in a call to SSL_read()/SSL_write() being issued after having already received a fatal error. OpenSSL version 1.0.2b-1.0.2m are affected. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2n. OpenSSL 1.1.0 is not affected. |
| CVE-2015-7501 | Critical | 2017-11-09 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | Red Hat JBoss A-MQ 6.x; BPM Suite (BPMS) 6.x; BRMS 6.x and 5.x; Data Grid (JDG) 6.x; Data Virtualization (JDV) 6.x and 5.x; Enterprise Application Platform 6.x, 5.x, and 4.3.x; Fuse 6.x; Fuse Service Works (FSW) 6.x; Operations Network (JBoss ON) 3.x; Portal 6.x; SOA Platform (SOA-P) 5.x; Web Server (JWS) 3.x; Red Hat OpenShift/xPAAS 3.x; and Red Hat Subscription Asset Manager 1.3 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted serialized Java object, related to the Apache Commons Collections (ACC) library. |
| CVE-2017-3736 | Medium | 2017-11-02 | Not applicable | No public exploit | There is a carry propagating bug in the x86_64 Montgomery squaring procedure in OpenSSL before 1.0.2m and 1.1.0 before 1.1.0g. 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. This only affects processors that support the BMI1, BMI2 and ADX extensions like Intel Broadwell (5th generation) and later or AMD Ryzen. |
| CVE-2017-10352 | Critical | 2017-10-19 | Mitigation candidate | Proof of concept only | Vulnerability in the Oracle WebLogic Server component of Oracle Fusion Middleware (subcomponent: WLS - Web Services). The supported version that is affected are 10.3.6.0.0, 12.1.3.0.0, 12.2.1.1.0, 12.2.1.2.0 and 12.2.1.3.0. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle WebLogic Server. While the vulnerability is in Oracle WebLogic Server, attacks may significantly impact additional products. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of Oracle WebLogic Server as well as unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of Oracle WebLogic Server accessible data and unauthorized read access to a subset of Oracle WebLogic Server accessible data. CVSS 3.0 Base Score 9.9 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:H). |
| CVE-2017-13077 | Medium | 2017-10-17 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA and WPA2) allows reinstallation of the Pairwise Transient Key (PTK) Temporal Key (TK) during the four-way handshake, allowing an attacker within radio range to replay, decrypt, or spoof frames. |
| CVE-2017-12617 | High | 2017-10-04 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | When running Apache Tomcat versions 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0, 8.5.0 to 8.5.22, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.46 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.81 with HTTP PUTs enabled (e.g. via setting the readonly initialisation parameter of the Default servlet to false) it was possible to upload a JSP file to the server via a specially crafted request. This JSP could then be requested and any code it contained would be executed by the server. |