Oracle Critical Patch Update July 2022
Released July 2022 · Oracle's advisory ↗ · ← Critical Patch Update, April 2022 · Critical Patch Update, October 2022 →
188 CVEs in this release, one square each
By status
27Protected by Waratek6Mitigation candidate72No exploit published49Outside Waratek scope34Not applicable
12Exploited, marked by the ring
No exploit published. For 47 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 10 matches · 4 exploited · 3 CISA KEV · 5 public PoC · 5 EPSS ≥ 0.5
Protected by Waratek
10
100.0%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
10
100.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
0
0.0%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
4
40.0%
Working exploit published
0
0.0%
Proof of concept only
2
20.0%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
4
40.0%
split by
peak 4 / quarter
Q2 181
Protected by Waratek1
Critical1
blocked by ARMR today1
Exploited1
Q3 180
Q4 180
Q1 190
Q2 190
Q3 190
Q4 190
Q1 200
Q2 201
Protected by Waratek1
Critical1
blocked by ARMR today1
No public exploit1
Q3 200
Q4 200
Q1 211
Protected by Waratek1
Critical1
blocked by ARMR today1
No public exploit1
Q2 210
Q3 210
Q4 211
Protected by Waratek1
Critical1
blocked by ARMR today1
No public exploit1
Q1 222
Protected by Waratek2
Critical2
blocked by ARMR today2
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit1
Q2 224
Protected by Waratek4
Critical4
blocked by ARMR today4
Exploited3
Proof of concept only1
Q2 18Q4 18Q2 19Q4 19Q2 20Q4 20Q2 21Q4 21Q2 22
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2022-23457 | Critical | 2022-04-25 | Protected by Waratek | Proof of concept only | ESAPI (The OWASP Enterprise Security API) is a free, open source, web application security control library. Prior to version 2.3.0.0, the default implementation of `Validator.getValidDirectoryPath(String, String, File, boolean)` may incorrectly treat the tested input string as a child of the specified parent directory. This potentially could allow control-flow bypass checks to be defeated if an attack can specify the entire string representing the 'input' path. This vulnerability is patched in release 2.3.0.0 of ESAPI. As a workaround, it is possible to write one's own implementation of the Validator interface. However, maintainers do not recommend this. |
| CVE-2021-31805 | Critical | 2022-04-12 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | The fix issued for CVE-2020-17530 was incomplete. So from Apache Struts 2.0.0 to 2.5.29, still some of the tag’s attributes could perform a double evaluation if a developer applied forced OGNL evaluation by using the %{...} syntax. Using forced OGNL evaluation on untrusted user input can lead to a Remote Code Execution and security degradation. |
| CVE-2022-22965 | Critical | 2022-04-01 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | A Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux application running on JDK 9+ may be vulnerable to remote code execution (RCE) via data binding. The specific exploit requires the application to run on Tomcat as a WAR deployment. If the application is deployed as a Spring Boot executable jar, i.e. the default, it is not vulnerable to the exploit. However, the nature of the vulnerability is more general, and there may be other ways to exploit it. |
| CVE-2022-22963 | Critical | 2022-04-01 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | In Spring Cloud Function versions 3.1.6, 3.2.2 and older unsupported versions, when using routing functionality it is possible for a user to provide a specially crafted SpEL as a routing-expression that may result in remote code execution and access to local resources. |
| CVE-2022-0839 | Critical | 2022-03-04 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | Improper Restriction of XML External Entity Reference in GitHub repository liquibase/liquibase prior to 4.8.0. |
| CVE-2022-23305 | Critical | 2022-01-18 | Protected by Waratek | Proof of concept only | By design, the JDBCAppender in Log4j 1.2.x accepts an SQL statement as a configuration parameter where the values to be inserted are converters from PatternLayout. The message converter, %m, is likely to always be included. This allows attackers to manipulate the SQL by entering crafted strings into input fields or headers of an application that are logged allowing unintended SQL queries to be executed. Note this issue only affects Log4j 1.x when specifically configured to use the JDBCAppender, which is not the default. Beginning in version 2.0-beta8, the JDBCAppender was re-introduced with proper support for parameterized SQL queries and further customization over the columns written to in logs. Apache Log4j 1.2 reached end of life in August 2015. Users should upgrade to Log4j 2 as it addresses numerous other issues from the previous versions. |
| CVE-2021-42575 | Critical | 2021-10-18 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | The OWASP Java HTML Sanitizer before 20211018.1 does not properly enforce policies associated with the SELECT, STYLE, and OPTION elements. |
| CVE-2021-23926 | Critical | 2021-01-14 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | The XML parsers used by XMLBeans up to version 2.6.0 did not set the properties needed to protect the user from malicious XML input. Vulnerabilities include possibilities for XML Entity Expansion attacks. Affects XMLBeans up to and including v2.6.0. |
| CVE-2020-10683 | Critical | 2020-05-01 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | dom4j before 2.0.3 and 2.1.x before 2.1.3 allows external DTDs and External Entities by default, which might enable XXE attacks. However, there is popular external documentation from OWASP showing how to enable the safe, non-default behavior in any application that uses dom4j. |
| CVE-2018-1273 | Critical | 2018-04-11 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | Spring Data Commons, versions prior to 1.13 to 1.13.10, 2.0 to 2.0.5, and older unsupported versions, contain a property binder vulnerability caused by improper neutralization of special elements. An unauthenticated remote malicious user (or attacker) can supply specially crafted request parameters against Spring Data REST backed HTTP resources or using Spring Data's projection-based request payload binding hat can lead to a remote code execution attack. |