Filtered by vendor Redhat
Subscribe
Filtered by product Jboss Enterprise Application Platform
Subscribe
Total
232 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2013-2133 | 1 Redhat | 2 Enterprise Linux, Jboss Enterprise Application Platform | 2025-04-11 | 5.5 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The EJB invocation handler implementation in Red Hat JBossWS, as used in JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (EAP) before 6.2.0, does not properly enforce the method level restrictions for JAX-WS Service endpoints, which allows remote authenticated users to access otherwise restricted JAX-WS handlers by leveraging permissions to the EJB class. | |||||
| CVE-2013-2185 | 2 Apache, Redhat | 3 Tomcat, Jboss Enterprise Application Platform, Jboss Enterprise Portal Platform | 2025-04-11 | 7.5 HIGH | N/A |
| The readObject method in the DiskFileItem class in Apache Tomcat and JBoss Web, as used in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 6.1.0 and Red Hat JBoss Portal 6.0.0, allows remote attackers to write to arbitrary files via a NULL byte in a file name in a serialized instance, a similar issue to CVE-2013-2186. NOTE: this issue is reportedly disputed by the Apache Tomcat team, although Red Hat considers it a vulnerability. The dispute appears to regard whether it is the responsibility of applications to avoid providing untrusted data to be deserialized, or whether this class should inherently protect against this issue | |||||
| CVE-2012-4550 | 1 Redhat | 1 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform | 2025-04-11 | 6.4 MEDIUM | N/A |
| JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBoss EAP or JBEAP) before 6.0.1, when using role-based authorization for Enterprise Java Beans (EJB) access, does not call the intended authorization modules, which prevents JACC permissions from being applied and allows remote attackers to obtain access to the EJB. | |||||
| CVE-2012-4572 | 1 Redhat | 2 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform, Jboss Enterprise Portal Platform | 2025-04-11 | 3.7 LOW | N/A |
| Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (EAP) before 6.1.0 and JBoss Portal before 6.1.0 does not load the implementation of a custom authorization module for a new application when an implementation is already loaded and the modules share class names, which allows local users to control certain applications' authorization decisions via a crafted application. | |||||
| CVE-2010-3878 | 1 Redhat | 1 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform | 2025-04-11 | 4.3 MEDIUM | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the JMX Console in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBoss EAP or JBEAP) 4.3 before 4.3.0.CP09 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that deploy WAR files. | |||||
| CVE-2022-3143 | 1 Redhat | 2 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform, Wildfly Elytron | 2025-04-09 | N/A | 7.4 HIGH |
| wildfly-elytron: possible timing attacks via use of unsafe comparator. A flaw was found in Wildfly-elytron. Wildfly-elytron uses java.util.Arrays.equals in several places, which is unsafe and vulnerable to timing attacks. To compare values securely, use java.security.MessageDigest.isEqual instead. This flaw allows an attacker to access secure information or impersonate an authed user. | |||||
| CVE-2009-2405 | 1 Redhat | 1 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform | 2025-04-09 | 4.3 MEDIUM | N/A |
| Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web Console in the Application Server in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBoss EAP or JBEAP) 4.2.0 before 4.2.0.CP08, 4.2.2GA, 4.3 before 4.3.0.CP07, and 5.1.0GA allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) monitorName, (2) objectName, (3) attribute, or (4) period parameter to createSnapshot.jsp, or the (5) monitorName, (6) objectName, (7) attribute, (8) threshold, (9) period, or (10) enabled parameter to createThresholdMonitor.jsp. NOTE: some of these details are obtained from third party information. | |||||
| CVE-2009-1380 | 1 Redhat | 1 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform | 2025-04-09 | 4.3 MEDIUM | N/A |
| Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in JMX-Console in JBossAs in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBoss EAP or JBEAP) 4.2 before 4.2.0.CP08 and 4.3 before 4.3.0.CP07 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the filter parameter, related to the key property and the position of quote and colon characters. | |||||
| CVE-2009-0027 | 1 Redhat | 1 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform | 2025-04-09 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The request handler in JBossWS in JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBoss EAP or JBEAP) 4.2 before 4.2.0.CP06 and 4.3 before 4.3.0.CP04 does not properly validate the resource path during a request for a WSDL file with a custom web-service endpoint, which allows remote attackers to read arbitrary XML files via a crafted request. | |||||
| CVE-2008-3519 | 1 Redhat | 1 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform | 2025-04-09 | 4.3 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The default configuration of the JBossAs component in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBossEAP or EAP), possibly 4.2 before CP04 and 4.3 before CP02, when a production environment is enabled, sets the DownloadServerClasses property to true, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information (non-EJB classes) via a download request, a different vulnerability than CVE-2008-3273. | |||||
| CVE-2009-3554 | 1 Redhat | 1 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform | 2025-04-09 | 2.1 LOW | N/A |
| Twiddle in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBoss EAP or JBEAP) 4.2 before 4.2.0.CP08 and 4.3 before 4.3.0.CP07 writes the JMX password, and other command-line arguments, to the twiddle.log file, which allows local users to obtain sensitive information by reading this file. | |||||
| CVE-2008-0455 | 2 Apache, Redhat | 6 Http Server, Enterprise Linux, Enterprise Linux Desktop and 3 more | 2025-04-09 | 4.3 MEDIUM | N/A |
| Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the mod_negotiation module in the Apache HTTP Server 2.2.6 and earlier in the 2.2.x series, 2.0.61 and earlier in the 2.0.x series, and 1.3.39 and earlier in the 1.3.x series allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML by uploading a file with a name containing XSS sequences and a file extension, which leads to injection within a (1) "406 Not Acceptable" or (2) "300 Multiple Choices" HTTP response when the extension is omitted in a request for the file. | |||||
| CVE-2022-4492 | 1 Redhat | 10 Build Of Quarkus, Integration Camel For Spring Boot, Integration Camel K and 7 more | 2025-03-12 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| The undertow client is not checking the server identity presented by the server certificate in https connections. This is a compulsory step (at least it should be performed by default) in https and in http/2. I would add it to any TLS client protocol. | |||||
| CVE-2019-9514 | 13 Apache, Apple, Canonical and 10 more | 30 Traffic Server, Mac Os X, Swiftnio and 27 more | 2025-01-14 | 7.8 HIGH | 7.5 HIGH |
| 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. | |||||
| CVE-2019-9516 | 12 Apache, Apple, Canonical and 9 more | 21 Traffic Server, Mac Os X, Swiftnio and 18 more | 2025-01-14 | 6.8 MEDIUM | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a header leak, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of headers with a 0-length header name and 0-length header value, optionally Huffman encoded into 1-byte or greater headers. Some implementations allocate memory for these headers and keep the allocation alive until the session dies. This can consume excess memory. | |||||
| CVE-2019-9518 | 11 Apache, Apple, Canonical and 8 more | 20 Traffic Server, Mac Os X, Swiftnio and 17 more | 2025-01-14 | 7.8 HIGH | 7.5 HIGH |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a flood of empty frames, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of frames with an empty payload and without the end-of-stream flag. These frames can be DATA, HEADERS, CONTINUATION and/or PUSH_PROMISE. The peer spends time processing each frame disproportionate to attack bandwidth. This can consume excess CPU. | |||||
| CVE-2019-9513 | 12 Apache, Apple, Canonical and 9 more | 22 Traffic Server, Mac Os X, Swiftnio and 19 more | 2025-01-14 | 7.8 HIGH | 7.5 HIGH |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU. | |||||
| CVE-2019-9515 | 12 Apache, Apple, Canonical and 9 more | 24 Traffic Server, Mac Os X, Swiftnio and 21 more | 2025-01-14 | 7.8 HIGH | 7.5 HIGH |
| 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. | |||||
| CVE-2019-9511 | 12 Apache, Apple, Canonical and 9 more | 22 Traffic Server, Mac Os X, Swiftnio and 19 more | 2025-01-14 | 7.8 HIGH | 7.5 HIGH |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both. | |||||
| CVE-2019-9517 | 12 Apache, Apple, Canonical and 9 more | 25 Http Server, Traffic Server, Mac Os X and 22 more | 2025-01-14 | 7.8 HIGH | 7.5 HIGH |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to unconstrained interal data buffering, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens the HTTP/2 window so the peer can send without constraint; however, they leave the TCP window closed so the peer cannot actually write (many of) the bytes on the wire. The attacker then sends a stream of requests for a large response object. Depending on how the servers queue the responses, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both. | |||||