Filtered by vendor Redhat
Subscribe
Filtered by product Jboss Enterprise Application Platform
Subscribe
Total
234 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2014-0018 | 1 Redhat | 2 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform, Jboss Wildfly Application Server | 2025-04-11 | 1.9 LOW | N/A |
| Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (JBEAP) 6.2.0 and JBoss WildFly Application Server, when run under a security manager, do not properly restrict access to the Modular Service Container (MSC) service registry, which allows local users to modify the server via a crafted deployment. | |||||
| CVE-2013-4128 | 1 Redhat | 1 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform | 2025-04-11 | 6.4 MEDIUM | N/A |
| Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (EAP) 6.1.0 does not properly cache EJB invocations by remote-naming, which allows remote attackers to hijack sessions by using a remoting client. | |||||
| CVE-2012-1167 | 1 Redhat | 4 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform, Jboss Enterprise Brms Platform, Jboss Enterprise Soa Platform and 1 more | 2025-04-11 | 4.6 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The JBoss Server in JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 5.1.x before 5.1.2 and 5.2.x before 5.2.2, Web Platform before 5.1.2, BRMS Platform before 5.3.0, and SOA Platform before 5.3.0, when the server is configured to use the JaccAuthorizationRealm and the ignoreBaseDecision property is set to true on the JBossWebRealm, does not properly check the permissions created by the WebPermissionMapping class, which allows remote authenticated users to access arbitrary applications. | |||||
| 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-2010-3708 | 1 Redhat | 2 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform, Jboss Enterprise Soa Platform | 2025-04-11 | 7.5 HIGH | N/A |
| The serialization implementation in JBoss Drools in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBoss EAP or JBEAP) 4.3 before 4.3.0.CP09 and JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform 4.2 and 4.3 supports the embedding of class files, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted static initializer. | |||||
| CVE-2012-3369 | 1 Redhat | 3 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform, Jboss Enterprise Brms Platform, Jboss Enterprise Web Platform | 2025-04-11 | 4.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The CallerIdentityLoginModule in JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (EAP) before 5.2.0, Web Platform (EWP) before 5.2.0, BRMS Platform before 5.3.1, and SOA Platform before 5.3.1 allows remote attackers to gain privileges of the previous user via a null password, which causes the previous user's password to be used. | |||||
| CVE-2010-3862 | 1 Redhat | 3 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform, Jboss Enterprise Web Platform, Jboss Remoting | 2025-04-11 | 2.6 LOW | N/A |
| The org.jboss.remoting.transport.bisocket.BisocketServerInvoker$SecondaryServerSocketThread.run method in JBoss Remoting 2.2.x before 2.2.3.SP4 and 2.5.x before 2.5.3.SP2 in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBoss EAP or JBEAP) 4.3 through 4.3.0.CP09, and 5.1.0; and JBoss Enterprise Web Platform (aka JBEWP) 5.1.0; allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon outage) by establishing a bisocket control connection TCP session, and then not sending any application data. | |||||
| 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-2009-3554 | 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-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-2009-0027 | 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-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-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-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-2019-9513 | 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-2019-9511 | 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-2019-9515 | 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-2019-9516 | 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-2019-9514 | 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. | |||||