CVSS: 7.8EPSS: 4%CPEs: 44EXPL: 0CVE-2019-9515 – Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a settings flood, potentially leading to a denial of service
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2019-9515
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a settings flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of SETTINGS frames to the peer. Since the RFC requires that the peer reply with one acknowledgement per SETTINGS frame, an empty SETTINGS frame is almost equivalent in behavior to a ping. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both. Algunas implementaciones de HTTP / 2 son vulnerables a una inundación de configuraciones, lo que puede conducir a una denegación de servicio. • http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00031.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00032.html http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2019/Aug/16 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2766 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2796 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2861 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2925 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2939 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2955 • CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling •
CVSS: 7.8EPSS: 82%CPEs: 55EXPL: 0CVE-2019-9514 – Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a reset flood, potentially leading to a denial of service
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2019-9514
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a reset flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens a number of streams and sends an invalid request over each stream that should solicit a stream of RST_STREAM frames from the peer. Depending on how the peer queues the RST_STREAM frames, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both. Algunas implementaciones de HTTP / 2 son vulnerables a una inundación de reinicio, lo que puede conducir a una denegación de servicio. El atacante abre una serie de secuencias y envía una solicitud no válida sobre cada secuencia que debería solicitar una secuencia de tramas RST_STREAM del par. • http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-08/msg00076.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00002.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00011.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00021.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00031.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00032.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09 • CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling •
CVSS: 9.8EPSS: 1%CPEs: 61EXPL: 0CVE-2019-14379 – jackson-databind: default typing mishandling leading to remote code execution
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2019-14379
SubTypeValidator.java in FasterXML jackson-databind before 2.9.9.2 mishandles default typing when ehcache is used (because of net.sf.ehcache.transaction.manager.DefaultTransactionManagerLookup), leading to remote code execution. El archivo SubTypeValidator.java en jackson-databind de FasterXML en versiones anteriores a la 2.9.9.2 maneja inapropiadamente la escritura predeterminada cuando se usa ehcache (debido a net.sf.ehcache.transaction.manager.DefaultTransactionManagerLookup), lo que conlleva a la ejecución de código remoto. A flaw was discovered in FasterXML jackson-databind, where it would permit polymorphic deserialization of malicious objects using the ehcache and logback JNDI gadgets when used in conjunction with polymorphic type handling methods such as `enableDefaultTyping()` or when @JsonTypeInfo is using `Id.CLASS` or `Id.MINIMAL_CLASS` or in any other way which ObjectMapper.readValue might instantiate objects from unsafe sources. An attacker could use this flaw to execute arbitrary code. • http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2022/Mar/23 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2019:2824 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2743 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2858 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2935 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2936 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2937 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2938 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2998 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2 • CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data CWE-1321: Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution') •
CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 28EXPL: 0CVE-2019-10184 – undertow: Information leak in requests for directories without trailing slashes
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2019-10184
undertow before version 2.0.23.Final is vulnerable to an information leak issue. Web apps may have their directory structures predicted through requests without trailing slashes via the api. Undertow en versiones anteriores a la 2.0.23.Final es vulnerable a un problema de fuga de información. Las aplicaciones web pueden tener sus estructuras de directorio predecibles a través de solicitudes sin barras finales mediante la API. • https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2935 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2936 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2937 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2938 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2998 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3044 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3045 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3046 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3050 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA • CWE-862: Missing Authorization •
CVSS: 6.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 2EXPL: 0CVE-2019-3875 – keycloak: missing signatures validation on CRL used to verify client certificates
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2019-3875
A vulnerability was found in keycloak before 6.0.2. The X.509 authenticator supports the verification of client certificates through the CRL, where the CRL list can be obtained from the URL provided in the certificate itself (CDP) or through the separately configured path. The CRL are often available over the network through unsecured protocols ('http' or 'ldap') and hence the caller should verify the signature and possibly the certification path. Keycloak currently doesn't validate signatures on CRL, which can result in a possibility of various attacks like man-in-the-middle. Se encontró una vulnerabilidad en keycloak versión anterior a 6.0.2. • http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/108748 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2019-3875 https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2019-3875 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690628 • CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity •