Page 10 of 57 results (0.020 seconds)

CVSS: 9.8EPSS: 0%CPEs: 46EXPL: 1

FasterXML jackson-databind 2.x before 2.9.10.4 mishandles the interaction between serialization gadgets and typing, related to br.com.anteros.dbcp.AnterosDBCPConfig (aka anteros-core). FasterXML jackson-databind versiones 2.x anteriores a 2.9.10.4, maneja inapropiadamente la interacción entre la serialización de gadgets y el tipeo, relacionada a br.com.anteros.dbcp.AnterosDBCPConfig (también se conoce como anteros-core). A flaw was found in jackson-databind 2.x. FasterXML jackson-databind 2.x mishandles the interaction between serialization gadgets and typing. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality and integrity as well as system availability. • https://github.com/fairyming/CVE-2020-9548 https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-databind/issues/2634 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r35d30db00440ef63b791c4b7f7acb036e14d4a23afa2a249cb66c0fd%40%3Cissues.zookeeper.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r9464a40d25c3ba1a55622db72f113eb494a889656962d098c70c5bb1%40%3Cdev.zookeeper.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r98c9b6e4c9e17792e2cd1ec3e4aa20b61a791939046d3f10888176bb%40%3Cissues.zookeeper.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rb6fecb5e96a6d61e175ff49f33f2713798dd05cf03067c169d195596& • CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data •

CVSS: 9.8EPSS: 97%CPEs: 38EXPL: 18

When using the Apache JServ Protocol (AJP), care must be taken when trusting incoming connections to Apache Tomcat. Tomcat treats AJP connections as having higher trust than, for example, a similar HTTP connection. If such connections are available to an attacker, they can be exploited in ways that may be surprising. In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.30, 8.5.0 to 8.5.50 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.99, Tomcat shipped with an AJP Connector enabled by default that listened on all configured IP addresses. It was expected (and recommended in the security guide) that this Connector would be disabled if not required. • https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/49039 https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/48143 https://github.com/sgdream/CVE-2020-1938 https://github.com/xindongzhuaizhuai/CVE-2020-1938 https://github.com/laolisafe/CVE-2020-1938 https://github.com/sv3nbeast/CVE-2020-1938-Tomact-file_include-file_read https://github.com/fairyming/CVE-2020-1938 https://github.com/dacade/CVE-2020-1938 https://github.com/Hancheng-Lei/Hacking-Vulnerability-CVE-2020-1938-Ghostcat https://github.com/w4fz5uck5& • CWE-285: Improper Authorization •

CVSS: 5.8EPSS: 0%CPEs: 60EXPL: 0

In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.30, 8.5.0 to 8.5.50 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.99 the HTTP header parsing code used an approach to end-of-line parsing that allowed some invalid HTTP headers to be parsed as valid. This led 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. En Apache Tomcat versiones 9.0.0.M1 hasta 9.0.30, versiones 8.5.0 hasta 8.5.50 y versiones 7.0.0 hasta 7.0.99, el código de análisis del encabezado HTTP utilizó un enfoque para el análisis de fin de línea que permitió a algunos encabezados HTTP no válidos ser analizados como válidos. Esto conllevó a una posibilidad de Tráfico No Autorizado de Peticiones HTTP si Tomcat se encontraba detrás de un proxy inverso que manejaba incorrectamente el encabezado Transfer-Encoding no válido en una manera particular. • http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2020-03/msg00025.html https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r127f76181aceffea2bd4711b03c595d0f115f63e020348fe925a916c%40%3Cannounce.tomcat.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r441c1f30a252bf14b07396286f6abd8089ce4240e91323211f1a2d75%40%3Cusers.tomcat.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r660cd379afe346f10d72c0eaa8459ccc95d83aff181671b7e9076919%40%3Cusers.tomcat.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r7bc994c965a34876bd94d5ff15b4e1e30b6220a15eb9b47c81915b78%40%3Ccommits.tomee.apache.org%3E • CWE-444: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') •

CVSS: 5.3EPSS: 0%CPEs: 52EXPL: 1

Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.3 are vulnerable to CSRF attacks through CORS preflight requests that target Spring MVC (spring-webmvc module) or Spring WebFlux (spring-webflux module) endpoints. Only non-authenticated endpoints are vulnerable because preflight requests should not include credentials and therefore requests should fail authentication. However a notable exception to this are Chrome based browsers when using client certificates for authentication since Chrome sends TLS client certificates in CORS preflight requests in violation of spec requirements. No HTTP body can be sent or received as a result of this attack. Spring Framework, versiones 5.2.x anteriores a 5.2.3 son vulnerables a los ataques de tipo CSRF por medio de peticiones de verificación previa CORS que van dirigidas a los endpoints Spring MVC (módulo spring-webmvc) o Spring WebFlux (módulo spring-webflux). • https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2020-5397 https://www.oracle.com//security-alerts/cpujul2021.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuapr2020.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2020.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2022.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuoct2020.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuoct2021.html • CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) •

CVSS: 8.0EPSS: 62%CPEs: 63EXPL: 1

In Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.3, versions 5.1.x prior to 5.1.13, and versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.16, an application is vulnerable to a reflected file download (RFD) attack when it sets a "Content-Disposition" header in the response where the filename attribute is derived from user supplied input. En Spring Framework, versiones 5.2.x anteriores a 5.2.3, versiones 5.1.x anteriores a 5.1.13 y versiones 5.0.x anteriores a 5.0.16, una aplicación es vulnerable a un ataque de tipo reflected file download (RFD) cuando se establece un encabezado "Content-Disposition" en la respuesta donde el atributo filename es derivado de la entrada suministrada por el usuario. A flaw was found in springframework in versions prior to 5.0.16, 5.1.13, and 5.2.3. A reflected file download (RFD) attack is possible when a "Content-Disposition" header is set in response to where the filename attribute is derived from user supplied input. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality and integrity as well as system availability. • https://github.com/motikan2010/CVE-2020-5398 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r028977b9b9d44a89823639aa3296fb0f0cfdd76b4450df89d3c4fbbf%40%3Cissues.karaf.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0f2d0ae1bad2edb3d4a863d77f3097b5e88cfbdae7b809f4f42d6aad%40%3Cissues.karaf.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0f3530f7cb510036e497532ffc4e0bd0b882940448cf4e233994b08b%40%3Ccommits.karaf.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r1accbd4f31ad2f40e1661d70a4510a584eb3efd1e32e8660ccf46676%40%3Ccommits.karaf.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org&#x • CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') CWE-494: Download of Code Without Integrity Check •