Page 7 of 74 results (0.018 seconds)

CVSS: 5.3EPSS: 0%CPEs: 31EXPL: 0

When a SecurityManager is configured, a web application's ability to read system properties should be controlled by the SecurityManager. In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M9, 8.5.0 to 8.5.4, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.36, 7.0.0 to 7.0.70, 6.0.0 to 6.0.45 the system property replacement feature for configuration files could be used by a malicious web application to bypass the SecurityManager and read system properties that should not be visible. Cuando se configura un SecurityManager, la capacidad de una aplicación web de leer las propiedades del sistema debería estar controlada por SecurityManager. En Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 a 9.0.0.M9, 8.5.0 a 8.5.4, 8.0.0.RC1 a 8.0.36, 7.0.0 a 7.0.70, 6.0.0 a 6.0.45 la funcionalidad de reemplazo de propiedades del sistema para archivos de configuración podría ser utilizada por una aplicación web maliciosa para eludir el SecurityManager y leer propiedades del sistema que no deberían ser visibles. It was discovered that when a SecurityManager was configured, Tomcat's system property replacement feature for configuration files could be used by a malicious web application to bypass the SecurityManager and read system properties that should not be visible. • http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0457.html http://www.debian.org/security/2016/dsa-3720 http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/93943 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037143 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:0455 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:0456 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:2247 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/09d2f2c65ac4ff5da42f15dc2b0f78b655e50f1a42e8a9784134a9eb%40%3Cannounce.tomcat.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/343558d982879bf88e •

CVSS: 9.1EPSS: 0%CPEs: 33EXPL: 1

In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M9, 8.5.0 to 8.5.4, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.36, 7.0.0 to 7.0.70 and 6.0.0 to 6.0.45 a malicious web application was able to bypass a configured SecurityManager via a Tomcat utility method that was accessible to web applications. En Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 a 9.0.0.M9, 8.5.0 a 8.5.4, 8.0.0.RC1 a 8.0.36, 7.0.0 a 7.0.70, y 6.0.0 a 6.0.45 una aplicación web maliciosa era capaz de omitir un SecurityManager configurado mediante un método utility Tomcat accesible para las aplicaciones web. It was discovered that a malicious web application could bypass a configured SecurityManager via a Tomcat utility method that was accessible to web applications. • http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/155873/Tomcat-9.0.0.M1-Sandbox-Escape.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0457.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-1551.html http://www.debian.org/security/2016/dsa-3720 http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/93942 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037142 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038757 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:0455 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:0456 https://access.redhat.com/err •

CVSS: 5.9EPSS: 0%CPEs: 33EXPL: 0

The Realm implementations in Apache Tomcat versions 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M9, 8.5.0 to 8.5.4, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.36, 7.0.0 to 7.0.70 and 6.0.0 to 6.0.45 did not process the supplied password if the supplied user name did not exist. This made a timing attack possible to determine valid user names. Note that the default configuration includes the LockOutRealm which makes exploitation of this vulnerability harder. Las implementaciones Realm en Apache Tomcat versiones 9.0.0.M1 a 9.0.0.M9, 8.5.0 a 8.5.4, 8.0.0.RC1 a 8.0.36, 7.0.0 a 7.0.70, y 6.0.0 a 6.0.45 no procesaban la contraseña proporcionada si el nombre de usuario proporcionado no existía. Esto hizo posible la realización de un ataque basado en tiempo para determinar nombres de usuario válidos. • http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0457.html http://www.debian.org/security/2016/dsa-3720 http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/93939 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037144 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:0455 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:0456 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:2247 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1872f96bad43647832bdd84a408794cd06d9cbb557af63085ca10009%40%3Cannounce.tomcat.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/343558d982879bf88e • CWE-203: Observable Discrepancy •

CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 32EXPL: 0

The ResourceLinkFactory implementation in Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M9, 8.5.0 to 8.5.4, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.36, 7.0.0 to 7.0.70 and 6.0.0 to 6.0.45 did not limit web application access to global JNDI resources to those resources explicitly linked to the web application. Therefore, it was possible for a web application to access any global JNDI resource whether an explicit ResourceLink had been configured or not. La implementación ResourceLinkFactory en Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 a 9.0.0.M9, 8.5.0 a 8.5.4, 8.0.0.RC1 a 8.0.36, 7.0.0 a 7.0.70 a 6.0.0 a 6.0.45 no limitaba el acceso de las aplicaciones web a recursos globales JNDI a aquellos relacionados explícitamente con la aplicación web. Por lo tanto, era posible que una aplicación web accediese a cualquier recurso global JNDI sin importar si se había configurado un ResourceLink explícito. It was discovered that it was possible for a web application to access any global JNDI resource whether an explicit ResourceLink had been configured or not. • http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0457.html http://www.debian.org/security/2016/dsa-3720 http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/93940 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037145 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:0455 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:0456 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:2247 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/343558d982879bf88ec20dbf707f8c11255f8e219e81d45c4f8d0551%40%3Cdev.tomcat.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/37220405a377c0182d2afdb • CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization •

CVSS: 7.1EPSS: 0%CPEs: 178EXPL: 1

The code in Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M11, 8.5.0 to 8.5.6, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.38, 7.0.0 to 7.0.72, and 6.0.0 to 6.0.47 that parsed the HTTP request line permitted invalid characters. This could be exploited, in conjunction with a proxy that also permitted the invalid characters but with a different interpretation, to inject data into the HTTP response. By manipulating the HTTP response the attacker could poison a web-cache, perform an XSS attack and/or obtain sensitive information from requests other then their own. El código en Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 a 9.0.0.M11, 8.5.0 a 8.5.6, 8.0.0.RC1 a 8.0.38, 7.0.0 a 7.0.72 y 6.0.0 a 6.0.47 que analizó la línea de solicitud HTTP permitió caracteres no válidos. Esto podría ser explotado, junto con un proxy que también permitió los caracteres no válidos, pero con una interpretación diferente, para inyectar datos en la respuesta HTTP. • https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/41783 http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0244.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0245.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0246.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0247.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0250.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0457.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0527.html http://www.debian.org/security/2016/dsa-3738 http://www.oracle.com/ • CWE-20: Improper Input Validation CWE-444: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') •