ID CVE-2011-2526
Summary Apache Tomcat 5.5.x before 5.5.34, 6.x before 6.0.33, and 7.x before 7.0.19, when sendfile is enabled for the HTTP APR or HTTP NIO connector, does not validate certain request attributes, which allows local users to bypass intended file access restrictions or cause a denial of service (infinite loop or JVM crash) by leveraging an untrusted web application.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.0
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.0
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.1
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.1
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.2
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.2
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.3
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.3
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.4
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.4
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.5
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.5
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.6
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.6
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.7
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.7
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.8
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.8
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.9
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.9
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.10
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.10
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.11
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.11
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.12
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.12
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.13
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.13
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.14
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.14
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.15
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.15
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.16
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.16
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.17
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.17
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.18
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.18
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.19
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.19
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.20
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.20
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.21
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.21
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.22
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.22
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.23
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.23
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.24
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.24
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.25
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.25
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.26
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.26
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.27
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.27
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.28
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.28
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.29
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.29
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.30
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.30
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.31
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.31
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.32
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.32
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.33
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.33
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.0
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.0
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.1
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.1
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.2
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.2
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.3
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.3
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.4
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.4
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.5
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.5
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.6
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.6
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.7
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.7
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.8
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.8
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.9
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.9
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.10
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.10
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.11
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.11
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.12
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.12
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.13
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.13
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.14
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.14
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.15
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.15
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.16
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.16
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.17
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.17
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.18
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.18
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.19
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.19
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.20
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.20
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.24
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.24
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.26
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.26
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.27
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.27
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.28
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.28
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.29
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.29
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.30
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.30
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.31
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.31
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 6.0.32
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:6.0.32
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.0
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.0
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.0 beta
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.0:beta
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.1
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.1
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.2
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.2
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.3
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.3
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.4
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.4
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.5
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.5
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.6
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.6
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.7
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.7
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.8
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.8
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.9
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.9
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.10
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.10
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.11
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.11
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.12
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.12
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.14
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.14
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 7.0.17
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:7.0.17
CVSS
Base: 4.4 (as of 15-07-2011 - 11:50)
Impact:
Exploitability:
CWE CWE-20
CAPEC
  • Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables
    This attack pattern involves causing a buffer overflow through manipulation of environment variables. Once the attacker finds that they can modify an environment variable, they may try to overflow associated buffers. This attack leverages implicit trust often placed in environment variables.
  • Server Side Include (SSI) Injection
    An attacker can use Server Side Include (SSI) Injection to send code to a web application that then gets executed by the web server. Doing so enables the attacker to achieve similar results to Cross Site Scripting, viz., arbitrary code execution and information disclosure, albeit on a more limited scale, since the SSI directives are nowhere near as powerful as a full-fledged scripting language. Nonetheless, the attacker can conveniently gain access to sensitive files, such as password files, and execute shell commands.
  • Cross Zone Scripting
    An attacker is able to cause a victim to load content into their web-browser that bypasses security zone controls and gain access to increased privileges to execute scripting code or other web objects such as unsigned ActiveX controls or applets. This is a privilege elevation attack targeted at zone-based web-browser security. In a zone-based model, pages belong to one of a set of zones corresponding to the level of privilege assigned to that page. Pages in an untrusted zone would have a lesser level of access to the system and/or be restricted in the types of executable content it was allowed to invoke. In a cross-zone scripting attack, a page that should be assigned to a less privileged zone is granted the privileges of a more trusted zone. This can be accomplished by exploiting bugs in the browser, exploiting incorrect configuration in the zone controls, through a cross-site scripting attack that causes the attackers' content to be treated as coming from a more trusted page, or by leveraging some piece of system functionality that is accessible from both the trusted and less trusted zone. This attack differs from "Restful Privilege Escalation" in that the latter correlates to the inadequate securing of RESTful access methods (such as HTTP DELETE) on the server, while cross-zone scripting attacks the concept of security zones as implemented by a browser.
  • Cross Site Scripting through Log Files
    An attacker may leverage a system weakness where logs are susceptible to log injection to insert scripts into the system's logs. If these logs are later viewed by an administrator through a thin administrative interface and the log data is not properly HTML encoded before being written to the page, the attackers' scripts stored in the log will be executed in the administrative interface with potentially serious consequences. This attack pattern is really a combination of two other attack patterns: log injection and stored cross site scripting.
  • Command Line Execution through SQL Injection
    An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.
  • Object Relational Mapping Injection
    An attacker leverages a weakness present in the database access layer code generated with an Object Relational Mapping (ORM) tool or a weakness in the way that a developer used a persistence framework to inject his or her own SQL commands to be executed against the underlying database. The attack here is similar to plain SQL injection, except that the application does not use JDBC to directly talk to the database, but instead it uses a data access layer generated by an ORM tool or framework (e.g. Hibernate). While most of the time code generated by an ORM tool contains safe access methods that are immune to SQL injection, sometimes either due to some weakness in the generated code or due to the fact that the developer failed to use the generated access methods properly, SQL injection is still possible.
  • SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter Tampering
    An attacker modifies the parameters of the SOAP message that is sent from the service consumer to the service provider to initiate a SQL injection attack. On the service provider side, the SOAP message is parsed and parameters are not properly validated before being used to access a database in a way that does not use parameter binding, thus enabling the attacker to control the structure of the executed SQL query. This pattern describes a SQL injection attack with the delivery mechanism being a SOAP message.
  • Subverting Environment Variable Values
    The attacker directly or indirectly modifies environment variables used by or controlling the target software. The attacker's goal is to cause the target software to deviate from its expected operation in a manner that benefits the attacker.
  • Format String Injection
    An attacker includes formatting characters in a string input field on the target application. Most applications assume that users will provide static text and may respond unpredictably to the presence of formatting character. For example, in certain functions of the C programming languages such as printf, the formatting character %s will print the contents of a memory location expecting this location to identify a string and the formatting character %n prints the number of DWORD written in the memory. An attacker can use this to read or write to memory locations or files, or simply to manipulate the value of the resulting text in unexpected ways. Reading or writing memory may result in program crashes and writing memory could result in the execution of arbitrary code if the attacker can write to the program stack.
  • LDAP Injection
    An attacker manipulates or crafts an LDAP query for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. Some applications use user input to create LDAP queries that are processed by an LDAP server. For example, a user might provide their username during authentication and the username might be inserted in an LDAP query during the authentication process. An attacker could use this input to inject additional commands into an LDAP query that could disclose sensitive information. For example, entering a * in the aforementioned query might return information about all users on the system. This attack is very similar to an SQL injection attack in that it manipulates a query to gather additional information or coerce a particular return value.
  • Relative Path Traversal
    An attacker exploits a weakness in input validation on the target by supplying a specially constructed path utilizing dot and slash characters for the purpose of obtaining access to arbitrary files or resources. An attacker modifies a known path on the target in order to reach material that is not available through intended channels. These attacks normally involve adding additional path separators (/ or \) and/or dots (.), or encodings thereof, in various combinations in order to reach parent directories or entirely separate trees of the target's directory structure.
  • Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow
    This type of attack exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in targeted client software through injection of malicious content from a custom-built hostile service.
  • Variable Manipulation
    An attacker manipulates variables used by an application to perform a variety of possible attacks. This can either be performed through the manipulation of function call parameters or by manipulating external variables, such as environment variables, that are used by an application. Changing variable values is usually undertaken as part of another attack; for example, a path traversal (inserting relative path modifiers) or buffer overflow (enlarging a variable value beyond an application's ability to store it).
  • Embedding Scripts in Non-Script Elements
    This attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where malicious scripts are embedded in elements that are not expected to host scripts such as image tags (<img>), comments in XML documents (< !-CDATA->), etc. These tags may not be subject to the same input validation, output validation, and other content filtering and checking routines, so this can create an opportunity for an attacker to tunnel through the application's elements and launch a XSS attack through other elements. As with all remote attacks, it is important to differentiate the ability to launch an attack (such as probing an internal network for unpatched servers) and the ability of the remote attacker to collect and interpret the output of said attack.
  • Flash Injection
    An attacker tricks a victim to execute malicious flash content that executes commands or makes flash calls specified by the attacker. One example of this attack is cross-site flashing, an attacker controlled parameter to a reference call loads from content specified by the attacker.
  • Cross-Site Scripting Using Alternate Syntax
    The attacker uses alternate forms of keywords or commands that result in the same action as the primary form but which may not be caught by filters. For example, many keywords are processed in a case insensitive manner. If the site's web filtering algorithm does not convert all tags into a consistent case before the comparison with forbidden keywords it is possible to bypass filters (e.g., incomplete black lists) by using an alternate case structure. For example, the "script" tag using the alternate forms of "Script" or "ScRiPt" may bypass filters where "script" is the only form tested. Other variants using different syntax representations are also possible as well as using pollution meta-characters or entities that are eventually ignored by the rendering engine. The attack can result in the execution of otherwise prohibited functionality.
  • Exploiting Trust in Client (aka Make the Client Invisible)
    An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by placing themselves in the communication channel between client and server such that communication directly to the server is possible where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.
  • XML Nested Payloads
    Applications often need to transform data in and out of the XML format by using an XML parser. It may be possible for an attacker to inject data that may have an adverse effect on the XML parser when it is being processed. By nesting XML data and causing this data to be continuously self-referential, an attacker can cause the XML parser to consume more resources while processing, causing excessive memory consumption and CPU utilization. An attacker's goal is to leverage parser failure to his or her advantage. In most cases this type of an attack will result in a denial of service due to an application becoming unstable, freezing, or crash. However it may be possible to cause a crash resulting in arbitrary code execution, leading to a jump from the data plane to the control plane [R.230.1].
  • XML Oversized Payloads
    Applications often need to transform data in and out of the XML format by using an XML parser. It may be possible for an attacker to inject data that may have an adverse effect on the XML parser when it is being processed. By supplying oversized payloads in input vectors that will be processed by the XML parser, an attacker can cause the XML parser to consume more resources while processing, causing excessive memory consumption and CPU utilization, and potentially cause execution of arbitrary code. An attacker's goal is to leverage parser failure to his or her advantage. In many cases this type of an attack will result in a denial of service due to an application becoming unstable, freezing, or crash. However it is possible to cause a crash resulting in arbitrary code execution, leading to a jump from the data plane to the control plane [R.231.1].
  • Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow
    In this attack, the idea is to cause an active filter to fail by causing an oversized transaction. An attacker may try to feed overly long input strings to the program in an attempt to overwhelm the filter (by causing a buffer overflow) and hoping that the filter does not fail securely (i.e. the user input is let into the system unfiltered).
  • Cross-Site Scripting via Encoded URI Schemes
    An attack of this type exploits the ability of most browsers to interpret "data", "javascript" or other URI schemes as client-side executable content placeholders. This attack consists of passing a malicious URI in an anchor tag HREF attribute or any other similar attributes in other HTML tags. Such malicious URI contains, for example, a base64 encoded HTML content with an embedded cross-site scripting payload. The attack is executed when the browser interprets the malicious content i.e., for example, when the victim clicks on the malicious link.
  • XML Injection
    An attacker utilizes crafted XML user-controllable input to probe, attack, and inject data into the XML database, using techniques similar to SQL injection. The user-controllable input can allow for unauthorized viewing of data, bypassing authentication or the front-end application for direct XML database access, and possibly altering database information.
  • Environment Variable Manipulation
    An attacker manipulates environment variables used by an application to perform a variety of possible attacks. Changing variable values is usually undertaken as part of another attack; for example, a path traversal (inserting relative path modifiers) or buffer overflow (enlarging a variable value beyond an application's ability to store it).
  • Global variable manipulation
    An attacker manipulates global variables used by an application to perform a variety of possible attacks. Changing variable values is usually undertaken as part of another attack; for example, a path traversal (inserting relative path modifiers) or buffer overflow (enlarging a variable value beyond an application's ability to store it).
  • Leverage Alternate Encoding
    This attack leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input and submit it to applications not expecting or effective at validating this encoding standard making input filtering difficult.
  • Fuzzing
    Fuzzing is a software testing method that feeds randomly constructed input to the system and looks for an indication that a failure in response to that input has occurred. Fuzzing treats the system as a black box and is totally free from any preconceptions or assumptions about the system. An attacker can leverage fuzzing to try to identify weaknesses in the system. For instance fuzzing can help an attacker discover certain assumptions made in the system about user input. Fuzzing gives an attacker a quick way of potentially uncovering some of these assumptions without really knowing anything about the internals of the system. These assumptions can then be turned against the system by specially crafting user input that may allow an attacker to achieve his goals.
  • Using Leading 'Ghost' Character Sequences to Bypass Input Filters
    An attacker intentionally introduces leading characters that enable getting the input past the filters. The API that is being targeted, ignores the leading "ghost" characters, and therefore processes the attackers' input. This occurs when the targeted API will accept input data in several syntactic forms and interpret it in the equivalent semantic way, while the filter does not take into account the full spectrum of the syntactic forms acceptable to the targeted API. Some APIs will strip certain leading characters from a string of parameters. Perhaps these characters are considered redundant, and for this reason they are removed. Another possibility is the parser logic at the beginning of analysis is specialized in some way that causes some characters to be removed. The attacker can specify multiple types of alternative encodings at the beginning of a string as a set of probes. One commonly used possibility involves adding ghost characters--extra characters that don't affect the validity of the request at the API layer. If the attacker has access to the API libraries being targeted, certain attack ideas can be tested directly in advance. Once alternative ghost encodings emerge through testing, the attacker can move from lab-based API testing to testing real-world service implementations.
  • Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies
    This attack relies on the use of HTTP Cookies to store credentials, state information and other critical data on client systems. The first form of this attack involves accessing HTTP Cookies to mine for potentially sensitive data contained therein. The second form of this attack involves intercepting this data as it is transmitted from client to server. This intercepted information is then used by the attacker to impersonate the remote user/session. The third form is when the cookie's content is modified by the attacker before it is sent back to the server. Here the attacker seeks to convince the target server to operate on this falsified information.
  • Embedding Scripts in HTTP Query Strings
    A variant of cross-site scripting called "reflected" cross-site scripting, the HTTP Query Strings attack consists of passing a malicious script inside an otherwise valid HTTP request query string. This is of significant concern for sites that rely on dynamic, user-generated content such as bulletin boards, news sites, blogs, and web enabled administration GUIs. The malicious script may steal session data, browse history, probe files, or otherwise execute attacks on the client side. Once the attacker has prepared the malicious HTTP query it is sent to a victim user (perhaps by email, IM, or posted on an online forum), who clicks on a normal looking link that contains a poison query string. This technique can be made more effective through the use of services like http://tinyurl.com/, which makes very small URLs that will redirect to very large, complex ones. The victim will not know what he is really clicking on.
  • MIME Conversion
    An attacker exploits a weakness in the MIME conversion routine to cause a buffer overflow and gain control over the mail server machine. The MIME system is designed to allow various different information formats to be interpreted and sent via e-mail. Attack points exist when data are converted to MIME compatible format and back.
  • Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
    An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
  • Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
    This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An attacker can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking.
  • Overflow Variables and Tags
    This type of attack leverages the use of tags or variables from a formatted configuration data to cause buffer overflow. The attacker crafts a malicious HTML page or configuration file that includes oversized strings, thus causing an overflow.
  • Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion
    In this attack, the target software is given input that the attacker knows will be modified and expanded in size during processing. This attack relies on the target software failing to anticipate that the expanded data may exceed some internal limit, thereby creating a buffer overflow.
  • Signature Spoof
    An attacker generates a message or datablock that causes the recipient to believe that the message or datablock was generated and cryptographically signed by an authoritative or reputable source, misleading a victim or victim operating system into performing malicious actions.
  • XML Client-Side Attack
    Client applications such as web browsers that process HTML data often need to transform data in and out of the XML format by using an XML parser. It may be possible for an attacker to inject data that may have an adverse effect on the XML parser when it is being processed. These adverse effects may include the parser crashing, consuming too much of a resource, executing too slowly, executing code supplied by an attacker, allowing usage of unintended system functionality, etc. An attacker's goal is to leverage parser failure to his or her advantage. In some cases it may be possible to jump from the data plane to the control plane via bad data being passed to an XML parser. [R.484.1]
  • Embedding NULL Bytes
    An attacker embeds one or more null bytes in input to the target software. This attack relies on the usage of a null-valued byte as a string terminator in many environments. The goal is for certain components of the target software to stop processing the input when it encounters the null byte(s).
  • Postfix, Null Terminate, and Backslash
    If a string is passed through a filter of some kind, then a terminal NULL may not be valid. Using alternate representation of NULL allows an attacker to embed the NULL mid-string while postfixing the proper data so that the filter is avoided. One example is a filter that looks for a trailing slash character. If a string insertion is possible, but the slash must exist, an alternate encoding of NULL in mid-string may be used.
  • Simple Script Injection
    An attacker embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect.
  • Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic
    This attack targets the encoding of the URL combined with the encoding of the slash characters. An attacker can take advantage of the multiple way of encoding an URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. An URL may contain special character that need special syntax handling in order to be interpreted. Special characters are represented using a percentage character followed by two digits representing the octet code of the original character (%HEX-CODE). For instance US-ASCII space character would be represented with %20. This is often referred as escaped ending or percent-encoding. Since the server decodes the URL from the requests, it may restrict the access to some URL paths by validating and filtering out the URL requests it received. An attacker will try to craft an URL with a sequence of special characters which once interpreted by the server will be equivalent to a forbidden URL. It can be difficult to protect against this attack since the URL can contain other format of encoding such as UTF-8 encoding, Unicode-encoding, etc.
  • SQL Injection
    This attack exploits target software that constructs SQL statements based on user input. An attacker crafts input strings so that when the target software constructs SQL statements based on the input, the resulting SQL statement performs actions other than those the application intended. SQL Injection results from failure of the application to appropriately validate input. When specially crafted user-controlled input consisting of SQL syntax is used without proper validation as part of SQL queries, it is possible to glean information from the database in ways not envisaged during application design. Depending upon the database and the design of the application, it may also be possible to leverage injection to have the database execute system-related commands of the attackers' choice. SQL Injection enables an attacker to talk directly to the database, thus bypassing the application completely. Successful injection can cause information disclosure as well as ability to add or modify data in the database. In order to successfully inject SQL and retrieve information from a database, an attacker:
  • String Format Overflow in syslog()
    This attack targets the format string vulnerabilities in the syslog() function. An attacker would typically inject malicious input in the format string parameter of the syslog function. This is a common problem, and many public vulnerabilities and associated exploits have been posted.
  • Blind SQL Injection
    Blind SQL Injection results from an insufficient mitigation for SQL Injection. Although suppressing database error messages are considered best practice, the suppression alone is not sufficient to prevent SQL Injection. Blind SQL Injection is a form of SQL Injection that overcomes the lack of error messages. Without the error messages that facilitate SQL Injection, the attacker constructs input strings that probe the target through simple Boolean SQL expressions. The attacker can determine if the syntax and structure of the injection was successful based on whether the query was executed or not. Applied iteratively, the attacker determines how and where the target is vulnerable to SQL Injection. For example, an attacker may try entering something like "username' AND 1=1; --" in an input field. If the result is the same as when the attacker entered "username" in the field, then the attacker knows that the application is vulnerable to SQL Injection. The attacker can then ask yes/no questions from the database server to extract information from it. For example, the attacker can extract table names from a database using the following types of queries: If the above query executes properly, then the attacker knows that the first character in a table name in the database is a letter between m and z. If it doesn't, then the attacker knows that the character must be between a and l (assuming of course that table names only contain alphabetic characters). By performing a binary search on all character positions, the attacker can determine all table names in the database. Subsequently, the attacker may execute an actual attack and send something like:
  • Using Unicode Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
    An attacker may provide a Unicode string to a system component that is not Unicode aware and use that to circumvent the filter or cause the classifying mechanism to fail to properly understanding the request. That may allow the attacker to slip malicious data past the content filter and/or possibly cause the application to route the request incorrectly.
  • URL Encoding
    This attack targets the encoding of the URL. An attacker can take advantage of the multiple way of encoding an URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. An URL may contain special character that need special syntax handling in order to be interpreted. Special characters are represented using a percentage character followed by two digits representing the octet code of the original character (%HEX-CODE). For instance US-ASCII space character would be represented with %20. This is often referred as escaped ending or percent-encoding. Since the server decodes the URL from the requests, it may restrict the access to some URL paths by validating and filtering out the URL requests it received. An attacker will try to craft an URL with a sequence of special characters which once interpreted by the server will be equivalent to a forbidden URL. It can be difficult to protect against this attack since the URL can contain other format of encoding such as UTF-8 encoding, Unicode-encoding, etc. The attacker could also subvert the meaning of the URL string request by encoding the data being sent to the server through a GET request. For instance an attacker may subvert the meaning of parameters used in a SQL request and sent through the URL string (See Example section).
  • User-Controlled Filename
    An attack of this type involves an attacker inserting malicious characters (such as a XSS redirection) into a filename, directly or indirectly that is then used by the target software to generate HTML text or other potentially executable content. Many websites rely on user-generated content and dynamically build resources like files, filenames, and URL links directly from user supplied data. In this attack pattern, the attacker uploads code that can execute in the client browser and/or redirect the client browser to a site that the attacker owns. All XSS attack payload variants can be used to pass and exploit these vulnerabilities.
  • Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding
    This attack targets the use of the backslash in alternate encoding. An attacker can provide a backslash as a leading character and causes a parser to believe that the next character is special. This is called an escape. By using that trick, the attacker tries to exploit alternate ways to encode the same character which leads to filter problems and opens avenues to attack.
  • Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding
    This attack targets the encoding of the Slash characters. An attacker would try to exploit common filtering problems related to the use of the slashes characters to gain access to resources on the target host. Directory-driven systems, such as file systems and databases, typically use the slash character to indicate traversal between directories or other container components. For murky historical reasons, PCs (and, as a result, Microsoft OSs) choose to use a backslash, whereas the UNIX world typically makes use of the forward slash. The schizophrenic result is that many MS-based systems are required to understand both forms of the slash. This gives the attacker many opportunities to discover and abuse a number of common filtering problems. The goal of this pattern is to discover server software that only applies filters to one version, but not the other.
  • Buffer Overflow in an API Call
    This attack targets libraries or shared code modules which are vulnerable to buffer overflow attacks. An attacker who has access to an API may try to embed malicious code in the API function call and exploit a buffer overflow vulnerability in the function's implementation. All clients that make use of the code library thus become vulnerable by association. This has a very broad effect on security across a system, usually affecting more than one software process.
  • Using UTF-8 Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
    This attack is a specific variation on leveraging alternate encodings to bypass validation logic. This attack leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input in UTF-8 and submit it to applications not expecting or effective at validating this encoding standard making input filtering difficult. UTF-8 (8-bit UCS/Unicode Transformation Format) is a variable-length character encoding for Unicode. Legal UTF-8 characters are one to four bytes long. However, early version of the UTF-8 specification got some entries wrong (in some cases it permitted overlong characters). UTF-8 encoders are supposed to use the "shortest possible" encoding, but naive decoders may accept encodings that are longer than necessary. According to the RFC 3629, a particularly subtle form of this attack can be carried out against a parser which performs security-critical validity checks against the UTF-8 encoded form of its input, but interprets certain illegal octet sequences as characters.
  • Web Logs Tampering
    Web Logs Tampering attacks involve an attacker injecting, deleting or otherwise tampering with the contents of web logs typically for the purposes of masking other malicious behavior. Additionally, writing malicious data to log files may target jobs, filters, reports, and other agents that process the logs in an asynchronous attack pattern. This pattern of attack is similar to "Log Injection-Tampering-Forging" except that in this case, the attack is targeting the logs of the web server and not the application.
  • XPath Injection
    An attacker can craft special user-controllable input consisting of XPath expressions to inject the XML database and bypass authentication or glean information that he normally would not be able to. XPath Injection enables an attacker to talk directly to the XML database, thus bypassing the application completely. XPath Injection results from the failure of an application to properly sanitize input used as part of dynamic XPath expressions used to query an XML database. In order to successfully inject XML and retrieve information from a database, an attacker:
  • AJAX Fingerprinting
    This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. In many XSS attacks the attacker must get a "hole in one" and successfully exploit the vulnerability on the victim side the first time, once the client is redirected the attacker has many chances to engage in follow on probes, but there is only one first chance. In a widely used web application this is not a major problem because 1 in a 1,000 is good enough in a widely used application. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on.
  • Embedding Script (XSS) in HTTP Headers
    An attack of this type exploits web applications that generate web content, such as links in a HTML page, based on unvalidated or improperly validated data submitted by other actors. XSS in HTTP Headers attacks target the HTTP headers which are hidden from most users and may not be validated by web applications.
  • OS Command Injection
    In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.
  • Buffer Overflow in Local Command-Line Utilities
    This attack targets command-line utilities available in a number of shells. An attacker can leverage a vulnerability found in a command-line utility to escalate privilege to root.
  • XSS in IMG Tags
    Image tags are an often overlooked, but convenient, means for a Cross Site Scripting attack. The attacker can inject script contents into an image (IMG) tag in order to steal information from a victim's browser and execute malicious scripts.
  • XML Parser Attack
    Applications often need to transform data in and out of the XML format by using an XML parser. It may be possible for an attacker to inject data that may have an adverse effect on the XML parser when it is being processed. These adverse effects may include the parser crashing, consuming too much of a resource, executing too slowly, executing code supplied by an attacker, allowing usage of unintended system functionality, etc. An attacker's goal is to leverage parser failure to his or her advantage. In some cases it may be possible to jump from the data plane to the control plane via bad data being passed to an XML parser. [R.99.1]
Access
VectorComplexityAuthentication
LOCAL MEDIUM NONE
Impact
ConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
PARTIAL PARTIAL PARTIAL
nessus via4
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id SUSE_11_4_TOMCAT6-110815.NASL
    description The following security issues were fixed in tomcat : - Fixed a tomcat user password information leak (CVE-2011-2204) - Fixed atomcat information leak and DoS (CVE-2011-2526) Also one bug was fixed : - fix bnc#702289 - suse manager pam ldap authentication fails - source CATALINA_HOME/bin/setenv.sh if exists
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2014-06-13
    plugin id 76034
    published 2014-06-13
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=76034
    title openSUSE Security Update : tomcat6 (openSUSE-SU-2011:0988-1)
  • NASL family Red Hat Local Security Checks
    NASL id REDHAT-RHSA-2011-1780.NASL
    description Updated tomcat6 packages that fix several security issues and one bug are now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this update as having moderate security impact. Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base scores, which give detailed severity ratings, are available for each vulnerability from the CVE links in the References section. Apache Tomcat is a servlet container for the Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages (JSP) technologies. APR (Apache Portable Runtime) as mentioned in the CVE-2011-3190 and CVE-2011-2526 descriptions does not refer to APR provided by the apr packages. It refers to the implementation of APR provided by the Tomcat Native library, which provides support for using APR with Tomcat. This library is not shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. This update includes fixes for users who have elected to use APR with Tomcat by taking the Tomcat Native library from a different product. Such a configuration is not supported by Red Hat, however. Multiple flaws were found in the way Tomcat handled HTTP DIGEST authentication. These flaws weakened the Tomcat HTTP DIGEST authentication implementation, subjecting it to some of the weaknesses of HTTP BASIC authentication, for example, allowing remote attackers to perform session replay attacks. (CVE-2011-1184) A flaw was found in the way the Coyote (org.apache.coyote.ajp.AjpProcessor) and APR (org.apache.coyote.ajp.AjpAprProcessor) Tomcat AJP (Apache JServ Protocol) connectors processed certain POST requests. An attacker could send a specially crafted request that would cause the connector to treat the message body as a new request. This allows arbitrary AJP messages to be injected, possibly allowing an attacker to bypass a web application's authentication checks and gain access to information they would otherwise be unable to access. The JK (org.apache.jk.server.JkCoyoteHandler) connector is used by default when the APR libraries are not present. The JK connector is not affected by this flaw. (CVE-2011-3190) A flaw was found in the Tomcat MemoryUserDatabase. If a runtime exception occurred when creating a new user with a JMX client, that user's password was logged to Tomcat log files. Note: By default, only administrators have access to such log files. (CVE-2011-2204) A flaw was found in the way Tomcat handled sendfile request attributes when using the HTTP APR or NIO (Non-Blocking I/O) connector. A malicious web application running on a Tomcat instance could use this flaw to bypass security manager restrictions and gain access to files it would otherwise be unable to access, or possibly terminate the Java Virtual Machine (JVM). The HTTP blocking IO (BIO) connector, which is not vulnerable to this issue, is used by default in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. (CVE-2011-2526) Red Hat would like to thank the Apache Tomcat project for reporting the CVE-2011-2526 issue. This update also fixes the following bug : * Previously, in certain cases, if 'LANG=fr_FR' or 'LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8' was set as an environment variable or in '/etc/sysconfig/tomcat6' on 64-bit PowerPC systems, Tomcat may have failed to start correctly. With this update, Tomcat works as expected when LANG is set to 'fr_FR' or 'fr_FR.UTF-8'. (BZ#748807) Users of Tomcat should upgrade to these updated packages, which contain backported patches to correct these issues. Tomcat must be restarted for this update to take effect.
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2017-01-04
    plugin id 57023
    published 2011-12-06
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=57023
    title RHEL 6 : tomcat6 (RHSA-2011:1780)
  • NASL family Scientific Linux Local Security Checks
    NASL id SL_20111205_TOMCAT6_ON_SL6.NASL
    description Apache Tomcat is a servlet container for the Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages (JSP) technologies. APR (Apache Portable Runtime) as mentioned in the CVE-2011-3190 and CVE-2011-2526 descriptions does not refer to APR provided by the apr packages. It refers to the implementation of APR provided by the Tomcat Native library, which provides support for using APR with Tomcat. This library is not shipped with Scientific Linux 6. This update includes fixes for users who have elected to use APR with Tomcat by taking the Tomcat Native library from a different product. Multiple flaws were found in the way Tomcat handled HTTP DIGEST authentication. These flaws weakened the Tomcat HTTP DIGEST authentication implementation, subjecting it to some of the weaknesses of HTTP BASIC authentication, for example, allowing remote attackers to perform session replay attacks. (CVE-2011-1184) A flaw was found in the way the Coyote (org.apache.coyote.ajp.AjpProcessor) and APR (org.apache.coyote.ajp.AjpAprProcessor) Tomcat AJP (Apache JServ Protocol) connectors processed certain POST requests. An attacker could send a specially crafted request that would cause the connector to treat the message body as a new request. This allows arbitrary AJP messages to be injected, possibly allowing an attacker to bypass a web application's authentication checks and gain access to information they would otherwise be unable to access. The JK (org.apache.jk.server.JkCoyoteHandler) connector is used by default when the APR libraries are not present. The JK connector is not affected by this flaw. (CVE-2011-3190) A flaw was found in the Tomcat MemoryUserDatabase. If a runtime exception occurred when creating a new user with a JMX client, that user's password was logged to Tomcat log files. Note: By default, only administrators have access to such log files. (CVE-2011-2204) A flaw was found in the way Tomcat handled sendfile request attributes when using the HTTP APR or NIO (Non-Blocking I/O) connector. A malicious web application running on a Tomcat instance could use this flaw to bypass security manager restrictions and gain access to files it would otherwise be unable to access, or possibly terminate the Java Virtual Machine (JVM). The HTTP blocking IO (BIO) connector, which is not vulnerable to this issue, is used by default in Scientific Linux 6. (CVE-2011-2526) This update also fixes the following bug : - Previously, in certain cases, if 'LANG=fr_FR' or 'LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8' was set as an environment variable or in '/etc/sysconfig/tomcat6' on 64-bit PowerPC systems, Tomcat may have failed to start correctly. With this update, Tomcat works as expected when LANG is set to 'fr_FR' or 'fr_FR.UTF-8'. Users of Tomcat should upgrade to these updated packages, which contain backported patches to correct these issues. Tomcat must be restarted for this update to take effect.
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2014-08-16
    plugin id 61184
    published 2012-08-01
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=61184
    title Scientific Linux Security Update : tomcat6 on SL6.x
  • NASL family Red Hat Local Security Checks
    NASL id REDHAT-RHSA-2012-0680.NASL
    description Updated tomcat5 packages that fix multiple security issues and two bugs are now available for JBoss Enterprise Web Server 1.0.2 for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 and 6. The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this update as having moderate security impact. Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base scores, which give detailed severity ratings, are available for each vulnerability from the CVE links in the References section. Apache Tomcat is a servlet container for the Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages (JSP) technologies. JBoss Enterprise Web Server includes the Tomcat Native library, providing Apache Portable Runtime (APR) support for Tomcat. References in this text to APR refer to the Tomcat Native implementation, not any other apr package. This update includes bug fixes as documented in JBPAPP-4873 and JBPAPP-6133. It also resolves the following security issues : Multiple flaws were found in the way Tomcat handled HTTP DIGEST authentication. These flaws weakened the Tomcat HTTP DIGEST authentication implementation, subjecting it to some of the weaknesses of HTTP BASIC authentication, for example, allowing remote attackers to perform session replay attacks. (CVE-2011-1184, CVE-2011-5062, CVE-2011-5063, CVE-2011-5064) A flaw was found in the way the Coyote (org.apache.coyote.ajp.AjpProcessor) and APR (org.apache.coyote.ajp.AjpAprProcessor) Tomcat AJP (Apache JServ Protocol) connectors processed certain POST requests. An attacker could send a specially crafted request that would cause the connector to treat the message body as a new request. This allows arbitrary AJP messages to be injected, possibly allowing an attacker to bypass a web application's authentication checks and gain access to information they would otherwise be unable to access. The JK (org.apache.jk.server.JkCoyoteHandler) connector is used by default when the APR libraries are not present. The JK connector is not affected by this flaw. (CVE-2011-3190) It was found that the Java hashCode() method implementation was susceptible to predictable hash collisions. A remote attacker could use this flaw to cause Tomcat to use an excessive amount of CPU time by sending an HTTP request with a large number of parameters whose names map to the same hash value. This update introduces a limit on the number of parameters processed per request to mitigate this issue. The default limit is 512 for parameters and 128 for headers. These defaults can be changed by setting the org.apache.tomcat.util.http.Parameters.MAX_COUNT and org.apache.tomcat.util.http.MimeHeaders.MAX_COUNT system properties. (CVE-2011-4858) It was found that Tomcat did not handle large numbers of parameters and large parameter values efficiently. A remote attacker could make Tomcat use an excessive amount of CPU time by sending an HTTP request containing a large number of parameters or large parameter values. This update introduces limits on the number of parameters and headers processed per request to address this issue. Refer to the CVE-2011-4858 description for information about the org.apache.tomcat.util.http.Parameters.MAX_COUNT and org.apache.tomcat.util.http.MimeHeaders.MAX_COUNT system properties. (CVE-2012-0022) A flaw was found in the Tomcat MemoryUserDatabase. If a runtime exception occurred when creating a new user with a JMX client, that user's password was logged to Tomcat log files. Note: By default, only administrators have access to such log files. (CVE-2011-2204) A flaw was found in the way Tomcat handled sendfile request attributes when using the HTTP APR or NIO (Non-Blocking I/O) connector. A malicious web application running on a Tomcat instance could use this flaw to bypass security manager restrictions and gain access to files it would otherwise be unable to access, or possibly terminate the Java Virtual Machine (JVM). The HTTP NIO connector is used by default in JBoss Enterprise Web Server. (CVE-2011-2526) Red Hat would like to thank oCERT for reporting CVE-2011-4858, and the Apache Tomcat project for reporting CVE-2011-2526. oCERT acknowledges Julian Walde and Alexander Klink as the original reporters of CVE-2011-4858. Users of Tomcat should upgrade to these updated packages, which resolve these issues. Tomcat must be restarted for this update to take effect.
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2017-01-05
    plugin id 78924
    published 2014-11-08
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=78924
    title RHEL 5 / 6 : JBoss Web Server (RHSA-2012:0680)
  • NASL family Web Servers
    NASL id TOMCAT_6_0_33.NASL
    description According to its self-reported version number, the instance of Apache Tomcat 6.0.x listening on the remote host is prior to 6.0.33. It is, therefore, affected by multiple vulnerabilities : - Several weaknesses were found in the HTTP Digest authentication implementation. The issues are as follows: replay attacks are possible, server nonces are not checked, client nonce counts are not checked, 'quality of protection' (qop) values are not checked, realm values are not checked and the server secret is a hard-coded, known string. The effect of these issues is that Digest authentication is no stronger than Basic authentication. (CVE-2011-1184, CVE-2011-5062, CVE-2011-5063, CVE-2011-5064) - An error handling issue exists related to the MemoryUserDatabase that allows user passwords to be disclosed through log files. (CVE-2011-2204) - An input validation error exists that allows a local attacker to either bypass security or carry out denial of service attacks when the APR or NIO connectors are enabled. (CVE-2011-2526) - A component that Apache Tomcat relies on called 'jsvc' contains an error in that it does not drop capabilities after starting and can allow access to sensitive files owned by the super user. Note this vulnerability only affects Linux operating systems and only when the following are true: jsvc is compiled with libpcap and the '-user' parameter is used. (CVE-2011-2729) Note that Nessus has not tested for these issues but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version number.
    last seen 2018-01-26
    modified 2018-01-24
    plugin id 56008
    published 2011-08-30
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=56008
    title Apache Tomcat 6.0.x < 6.0.33 Multiple Vulnerabilities
  • NASL family Red Hat Local Security Checks
    NASL id REDHAT-RHSA-2012-0074.NASL
    description Updated jbossweb packages that fix multiple security issues are now available for JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 5.1.2 for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, 5, and 6. The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this update as having important security impact. Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base scores, which give detailed severity ratings, are available for each vulnerability from the CVE links in the References section. JBoss Web is the web container, based on Apache Tomcat, in JBoss Enterprise Application Platform. It provides a single deployment platform for the JavaServer Pages (JSP) and Java Servlet technologies. A flaw was found in the way JBoss Web handled UTF-8 surrogate pair characters. If JBoss Web was hosting an application with UTF-8 character encoding enabled, or that included user-supplied UTF-8 strings in a response, a remote attacker could use this flaw to cause a denial of service (infinite loop) on the JBoss Web server. (CVE-2011-4610) It was found that the Java hashCode() method implementation was susceptible to predictable hash collisions. A remote attacker could use this flaw to cause JBoss Web to use an excessive amount of CPU time by sending an HTTP request with a large number of parameters whose names map to the same hash value. This update introduces a limit on the number of parameters and headers processed per request to mitigate this issue. The default limit is 512 for parameters and 128 for headers. These defaults can be changed by setting the org.apache.tomcat.util.http.Parameters.MAX_COUNT and org.apache.tomcat.util.http.MimeHeaders.MAX_COUNT system properties in 'jboss-as/server/[PROFILE]/deploy/properties-service.xml'. (CVE-2011-4858) It was found that JBoss Web did not handle large numbers of parameters and large parameter values efficiently. A remote attacker could make a JBoss Web server use an excessive amount of CPU time by sending an HTTP request containing a large number of parameters or large parameter values. This update introduces limits on the number of parameters and headers processed per request to address this issue. Refer to the CVE-2011-4858 description for information about the org.apache.tomcat.util.http.Parameters.MAX_COUNT and org.apache.tomcat.util.http.MimeHeaders.MAX_COUNT system properties. (CVE-2012-0022) Multiple flaws were found in the way JBoss Web handled HTTP DIGEST authentication. These flaws weakened the JBoss Web HTTP DIGEST authentication implementation, subjecting it to some of the weaknesses of HTTP BASIC authentication, for example, allowing remote attackers to perform session replay attacks. (CVE-2011-1184, CVE-2011-5062, CVE-2011-5063, CVE-2011-5064) A flaw was found in the way JBoss Web handled sendfile request attributes when using the HTTP APR (Apache Portable Runtime) or NIO (Non-Blocking I/O) connector. A malicious web application running on a JBoss Web instance could use this flaw to bypass security manager restrictions and gain access to files it would otherwise be unable to access, or possibly terminate the Java Virtual Machine (JVM). (CVE-2011-2526) Red Hat would like to thank NTT OSSC for reporting CVE-2011-4610; oCERT for reporting CVE-2011-4858; and the Apache Tomcat project for reporting CVE-2011-2526. oCERT acknowledges Julian Walde and Alexander Klink as the original reporters of CVE-2011-4858. Warning: Before applying this update, back up your JBoss Enterprise Application Platform's 'jboss-as/server/[PROFILE]/deploy/' directory, along with all other customized configuration files. Users of JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 5.1.2 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, 5, and 6 should upgrade to these updated packages, which correct these issues. The JBoss server process must be restarted for this update to take effect.
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2017-01-05
    plugin id 64022
    published 2013-01-24
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=64022
    title RHEL 4 / 5 / 6 : jbossweb (RHSA-2012:0074)
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id SUSE_TOMCAT5-7689.NASL
    description The following security issues were fixed in tomcat : - Fixed a tomcat user password information leak. (CVE-2011-2204) - Fixed a tomcat information leak and DoS (CVE-2011-2526)
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2012-11-10
    plugin id 57255
    published 2011-12-13
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=57255
    title SuSE 10 Security Update : tomcat5 (ZYPP Patch Number 7689)
  • NASL family Oracle Linux Local Security Checks
    NASL id ORACLELINUX_ELSA-2011-1780.NASL
    description From Red Hat Security Advisory 2011:1780 : Updated tomcat6 packages that fix several security issues and one bug are now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this update as having moderate security impact. Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base scores, which give detailed severity ratings, are available for each vulnerability from the CVE links in the References section. Apache Tomcat is a servlet container for the Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages (JSP) technologies. APR (Apache Portable Runtime) as mentioned in the CVE-2011-3190 and CVE-2011-2526 descriptions does not refer to APR provided by the apr packages. It refers to the implementation of APR provided by the Tomcat Native library, which provides support for using APR with Tomcat. This library is not shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. This update includes fixes for users who have elected to use APR with Tomcat by taking the Tomcat Native library from a different product. Such a configuration is not supported by Red Hat, however. Multiple flaws were found in the way Tomcat handled HTTP DIGEST authentication. These flaws weakened the Tomcat HTTP DIGEST authentication implementation, subjecting it to some of the weaknesses of HTTP BASIC authentication, for example, allowing remote attackers to perform session replay attacks. (CVE-2011-1184) A flaw was found in the way the Coyote (org.apache.coyote.ajp.AjpProcessor) and APR (org.apache.coyote.ajp.AjpAprProcessor) Tomcat AJP (Apache JServ Protocol) connectors processed certain POST requests. An attacker could send a specially crafted request that would cause the connector to treat the message body as a new request. This allows arbitrary AJP messages to be injected, possibly allowing an attacker to bypass a web application's authentication checks and gain access to information they would otherwise be unable to access. The JK (org.apache.jk.server.JkCoyoteHandler) connector is used by default when the APR libraries are not present. The JK connector is not affected by this flaw. (CVE-2011-3190) A flaw was found in the Tomcat MemoryUserDatabase. If a runtime exception occurred when creating a new user with a JMX client, that user's password was logged to Tomcat log files. Note: By default, only administrators have access to such log files. (CVE-2011-2204) A flaw was found in the way Tomcat handled sendfile request attributes when using the HTTP APR or NIO (Non-Blocking I/O) connector. A malicious web application running on a Tomcat instance could use this flaw to bypass security manager restrictions and gain access to files it would otherwise be unable to access, or possibly terminate the Java Virtual Machine (JVM). The HTTP blocking IO (BIO) connector, which is not vulnerable to this issue, is used by default in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. (CVE-2011-2526) Red Hat would like to thank the Apache Tomcat project for reporting the CVE-2011-2526 issue. This update also fixes the following bug : * Previously, in certain cases, if 'LANG=fr_FR' or 'LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8' was set as an environment variable or in '/etc/sysconfig/tomcat6' on 64-bit PowerPC systems, Tomcat may have failed to start correctly. With this update, Tomcat works as expected when LANG is set to 'fr_FR' or 'fr_FR.UTF-8'. (BZ#748807) Users of Tomcat should upgrade to these updated packages, which contain backported patches to correct these issues. Tomcat must be restarted for this update to take effect.
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2015-12-01
    plugin id 68399
    published 2013-07-12
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=68399
    title Oracle Linux 6 : tomcat6 (ELSA-2011-1780)
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id SUSE_11_3_TOMCAT6-110815.NASL
    description The following security issues were fixed in tomcat : - Fixed a tomcat user password information leak (CVE-2011-2204) - Fixed atomcat information leak and DoS (CVE-2011-2526) Also one bug was fixed : - fix bnc#702289 - suse manager pam ldap authentication fails - source CATALINA_HOME/bin/setenv.sh if exists
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2014-06-13
    plugin id 75762
    published 2014-06-13
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=75762
    title openSUSE Security Update : tomcat6 (openSUSE-SU-2011:0988-1)
  • NASL family Fedora Local Security Checks
    NASL id FEDORA_2011-13457.NASL
    description Fixes for: CVE-2011-3190 - authentication bypass and information disclosure CVE-2011-2526 - send file validation CVE-2011-2204 - password disclosure vulnerability JAVA_HOME setting in tomcat6.conf CVE-2011-0534, CVE-2011-0013, CVE-2010-3718 Note that Tenable Network Security has extracted the preceding description block directly from the Fedora security advisory. Tenable has attempted to automatically clean and format it as much as possible without introducing additional issues.
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2015-10-20
    plugin id 56573
    published 2011-10-21
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=56573
    title Fedora 14 : tomcat6-6.0.26-27.fc14 (2011-13457)
  • NASL family Web Servers
    NASL id TOMCAT_5_5_34.NASL
    description According to its self-reported version number, the instance of Apache Tomcat 5.5.x listening on the remote host is prior to 5.5.34. It is, there, affected by multiple vulnerabilities : - Several weaknesses were found in the HTTP Digest authentication implementation. The issues are as follows: replay attacks are possible, server nonces are not checked, client nonce counts are not checked, 'quality of protection' (qop) values are not checked, realm values are not checked and the server secret is a hard-coded, known string. The effect of these issues is that Digest authentication is no stronger than Basic authentication. (CVE-2011-1184, CVE-2011-5062, CVE-2011-5063, CVE-2011-5064) - An error handling issue exists related to the MemoryUserDatabase that allows user passwords to be disclosed through log files. (CVE-2011-2204) - An input validation error exists that allows a local attacker to either bypass security or carry out denial of service attacks when the APR or NIO connectors are enabled. (CVE-2011-2526) - A component that Apache Tomcat relies on called 'jsvc' contains an error in that it does not drop capabilities after starting and can allow access to sensitive files owned by the super user. Note this vulnerability only affects Linux operating systems and only when 'jsvc' is compiled with libpcap and the '-user' parameter is used. (CVE-2011-2729) - Specially crafted requests are incorrectly processed by Tomcat and can cause the server to allow injection of arbitrary AJP messages. This can lead to authentication bypass and disclosure of sensitive information. Note this vulnerability only occurs when the org.apache.jk.server.JkCoyoteHandler AJP connector is not used, POST requests are accepted, and the request body is not processed.(CVE-2011-3190) Note that Nessus has not tested for these issues but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version number.
    last seen 2018-01-26
    modified 2018-01-24
    plugin id 56301
    published 2011-09-26
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=56301
    title Apache Tomcat 5.5.x < 5.5.34 Multiple Vulnerabilities
  • NASL family Gentoo Local Security Checks
    NASL id GENTOO_GLSA-201206-24.NASL
    description The remote host is affected by the vulnerability described in GLSA-201206-24 (Apache Tomcat: Multiple vulnerabilities) Multiple vulnerabilities have been discovered in Apache Tomcat. Please review the CVE identifiers referenced below for details. Impact : The vulnerabilities allow an attacker to cause a Denial of Service, to hijack a session, to bypass authentication, to inject webscript, to enumerate valid usernames, to read, modify and overwrite arbitrary files, to bypass intended access restrictions, to delete work-directory files, to discover the server’s hostname or IP, to bypass read permissions for files or HTTP headers, to read or write files outside of the intended working directory, and to obtain sensitive information by reading a log file. Workaround : There is no known workaround at this time.
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2016-11-11
    plugin id 59677
    published 2012-06-25
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=59677
    title GLSA-201206-24 : Apache Tomcat: Multiple vulnerabilities
  • NASL family Debian Local Security Checks
    NASL id DEBIAN_DSA-2401.NASL
    description Several vulnerabilities have been found in Tomcat, a servlet and JSP engine : - CVE-2011-1184 CVE-2011-5062 CVE-2011-5063 CVE-2011-5064 The HTTP Digest Access Authentication implementation performed insufficient countermeasures against replay attacks. - CVE-2011-2204 In rare setups passwords were written into a logfile. - CVE-2011-2526 Missing input sanitising in the HTTP APR or HTTP NIO connectors could lead to denial of service. - CVE-2011-3190 AJP requests could be spoofed in some setups. - CVE-2011-3375 Incorrect request caching could lead to information disclosure. - CVE-2011-4858 CVE-2012-0022 This update adds countermeasures against a collision denial of service vulnerability in the Java hashtable implementation and addresses denial of service potentials when processing large amounts of requests. Additional information can be found at
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2015-02-16
    plugin id 57812
    published 2012-02-03
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=57812
    title Debian DSA-2401-1 : tomcat6 - several vulnerabilities
  • NASL family Ubuntu Local Security Checks
    NASL id UBUNTU_USN-1252-1.NASL
    description It was discovered that Tomcat incorrectly implemented HTTP DIGEST authentication. An attacker could use this flaw to perform a variety of authentication attacks. (CVE-2011-1184) Polina Genova discovered that Tomcat incorrectly created log entries with passwords when encountering errors during JMX user creation. A local attacker could possibly use this flaw to obtain sensitive information. This issue only affected Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, 10.10 and 11.04. (CVE-2011-2204) It was discovered that Tomcat incorrectly validated certain request attributes when sendfile is enabled. A local attacker could bypass intended restrictions, or cause the JVM to crash, resulting in a denial of service. (CVE-2011-2526) It was discovered that Tomcat incorrectly handled certain AJP requests. A remote attacker could use this flaw to spoof requests, bypass authentication, and obtain sensitive information. This issue only affected Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, 10.10 and 11.04. (CVE-2011-3190). Note that Tenable Network Security has extracted the preceding description block directly from the Ubuntu security advisory. Tenable has attempted to automatically clean and format it as much as possible without introducing additional issues.
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2016-05-25
    plugin id 56746
    published 2011-11-09
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=56746
    title Ubuntu 10.04 LTS / 10.10 / 11.04 / 11.10 : tomcat6 vulnerabilities (USN-1252-1)
  • NASL family Mandriva Local Security Checks
    NASL id MANDRIVA_MDVSA-2011-156.NASL
    description Multiple vulnerabilities has been discovered and corrected in tomcat 5.5.x : The implementation of HTTP DIGEST authentication in tomcat was discovered to have several weaknesses (CVE-2011-1184). Apache Tomcat, when the MemoryUserDatabase is used, creates log entries containing passwords upon encountering errors in JMX user creation, which allows local users to obtain sensitive information by reading a log file (CVE-2011-2204). Apache Tomcat, when sendfile is enabled for the HTTP APR or HTTP NIO connector, does not validate certain request attributes, which allows local users to bypass intended file access restrictions or cause a denial of service (infinite loop or JVM crash) by leveraging an untrusted web application (CVE-2011-2526). Certain AJP protocol connector implementations in Apache Tomcat allow remote attackers to spoof AJP requests, bypass authentication, and obtain sensitive information by causing the connector to interpret a request body as a new request (CVE-2011-3190). The updated packages have been patched to correct these issues.
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2014-02-28
    plugin id 56551
    published 2011-10-19
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=56551
    title Mandriva Linux Security Advisory : tomcat5 (MDVSA-2011:156)
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id SUSE_TOMCAT5-7688.NASL
    description The following security issues were fixed in tomcat : - Fixed a tomcat user password information leak. (CVE-2011-2204) - Fixed a tomcat information leak and DoS (CVE-2011-2526)
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2012-11-10
    plugin id 56035
    published 2011-09-01
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=56035
    title SuSE 10 Security Update : tomcat5 (ZYPP Patch Number 7688)
  • NASL family CentOS Local Security Checks
    NASL id CENTOS_RHSA-2011-1780.NASL
    description Updated tomcat6 packages that fix several security issues and one bug are now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this update as having moderate security impact. Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base scores, which give detailed severity ratings, are available for each vulnerability from the CVE links in the References section. Apache Tomcat is a servlet container for the Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages (JSP) technologies. APR (Apache Portable Runtime) as mentioned in the CVE-2011-3190 and CVE-2011-2526 descriptions does not refer to APR provided by the apr packages. It refers to the implementation of APR provided by the Tomcat Native library, which provides support for using APR with Tomcat. This library is not shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. This update includes fixes for users who have elected to use APR with Tomcat by taking the Tomcat Native library from a different product. Such a configuration is not supported by Red Hat, however. Multiple flaws were found in the way Tomcat handled HTTP DIGEST authentication. These flaws weakened the Tomcat HTTP DIGEST authentication implementation, subjecting it to some of the weaknesses of HTTP BASIC authentication, for example, allowing remote attackers to perform session replay attacks. (CVE-2011-1184) A flaw was found in the way the Coyote (org.apache.coyote.ajp.AjpProcessor) and APR (org.apache.coyote.ajp.AjpAprProcessor) Tomcat AJP (Apache JServ Protocol) connectors processed certain POST requests. An attacker could send a specially crafted request that would cause the connector to treat the message body as a new request. This allows arbitrary AJP messages to be injected, possibly allowing an attacker to bypass a web application's authentication checks and gain access to information they would otherwise be unable to access. The JK (org.apache.jk.server.JkCoyoteHandler) connector is used by default when the APR libraries are not present. The JK connector is not affected by this flaw. (CVE-2011-3190) A flaw was found in the Tomcat MemoryUserDatabase. If a runtime exception occurred when creating a new user with a JMX client, that user's password was logged to Tomcat log files. Note: By default, only administrators have access to such log files. (CVE-2011-2204) A flaw was found in the way Tomcat handled sendfile request attributes when using the HTTP APR or NIO (Non-Blocking I/O) connector. A malicious web application running on a Tomcat instance could use this flaw to bypass security manager restrictions and gain access to files it would otherwise be unable to access, or possibly terminate the Java Virtual Machine (JVM). The HTTP blocking IO (BIO) connector, which is not vulnerable to this issue, is used by default in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. (CVE-2011-2526) Red Hat would like to thank the Apache Tomcat project for reporting the CVE-2011-2526 issue. This update also fixes the following bug : * Previously, in certain cases, if 'LANG=fr_FR' or 'LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8' was set as an environment variable or in '/etc/sysconfig/tomcat6' on 64-bit PowerPC systems, Tomcat may have failed to start correctly. With this update, Tomcat works as expected when LANG is set to 'fr_FR' or 'fr_FR.UTF-8'. (BZ#748807) Users of Tomcat should upgrade to these updated packages, which contain backported patches to correct these issues. Tomcat must be restarted for this update to take effect.
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2014-08-16
    plugin id 57374
    published 2011-12-23
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=57374
    title CentOS 6 : tomcat6 (CESA-2011:1780)
  • NASL family Red Hat Local Security Checks
    NASL id REDHAT-RHSA-2012-0682.NASL
    description Updated tomcat6 packages that fix multiple security issues and three bugs are now available for JBoss Enterprise Web Server 1.0.2 for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 and 6. The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this update as having moderate security impact. Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base scores, which give detailed severity ratings, are available for each vulnerability from the CVE links in the References section. Apache Tomcat is a servlet container. JBoss Enterprise Web Server includes the Tomcat Native library, providing Apache Portable Runtime (APR) support for Tomcat. References in this text to APR refer to the Tomcat Native implementation, not any other apr package. This update fixes the JBPAPP-4873, JBPAPP-6133, and JBPAPP-6852 bugs. It also resolves the following security issues : Multiple flaws weakened the Tomcat HTTP DIGEST authentication implementation, subjecting it to some of the weaknesses of HTTP BASIC authentication, for example, allowing remote attackers to perform session replay attacks. (CVE-2011-1184, CVE-2011-5062, CVE-2011-5063, CVE-2011-5064) A flaw was found in the way the Coyote (org.apache.coyote.ajp.AjpProcessor) and APR (org.apache.coyote.ajp.AjpAprProcessor) Tomcat AJP (Apache JServ Protocol) connectors processed certain POST requests. An attacker could send a specially crafted request that would cause the connector to treat the message body as a new request. This allows arbitrary AJP messages to be injected, possibly allowing an attacker to bypass a web application's authentication checks and gain access to information they would otherwise be unable to access. The JK (org.apache.jk.server.JkCoyoteHandler) connector is used by default when the APR libraries are not present. The JK connector is not affected by this flaw. (CVE-2011-3190) A flaw in the way Tomcat recycled objects that contain data from user requests (such as IP addresses and HTTP headers) when certain errors occurred. If a user sent a request that caused an error to be logged, Tomcat would return a reply to the next request (which could be sent by a different user) with data from the first user's request, leading to information disclosure. Under certain conditions, a remote attacker could leverage this flaw to hijack sessions. (CVE-2011-3375) The Java hashCode() method implementation was susceptible to predictable hash collisions. A remote attacker could use this flaw to cause Tomcat to use an excessive amount of CPU time by sending an HTTP request with a large number of parameters whose names map to the same hash value. This update introduces a limit on the number of parameters processed per request to mitigate this issue. The default limit is 512 for parameters and 128 for headers. These defaults can be changed by setting the org.apache.tomcat.util.http.Parameters.MAX_COUNT and org.apache.tomcat.util.http.MimeHeaders.MAX_COUNT system properties. (CVE-2011-4858) Tomcat did not handle large numbers of parameters and large parameter values efficiently. A remote attacker could make Tomcat use an excessive amount of CPU time by sending an HTTP request containing a large number of parameters or large parameter values. This update introduces limits on the number of parameters and headers processed per request to address this issue. Refer to the CVE-2011-4858 description for information about the org.apache.tomcat.util.http.Parameters.MAX_COUNT and org.apache.tomcat.util.http.MimeHeaders.MAX_COUNT system properties. (CVE-2012-0022) A flaw in the Tomcat MemoryUserDatabase. If a runtime exception occurred when creating a new user with a JMX client, that user's password was logged to Tomcat log files. Note: By default, only administrators have access to such log files. (CVE-2011-2204) A flaw in the way Tomcat handled sendfile request attributes when using the HTTP APR or NIO (Non-Blocking I/O) connector. A malicious web application running on a Tomcat instance could use this flaw to bypass security manager restrictions and gain access to files it would otherwise be unable to access, or possibly terminate the Java Virtual Machine (JVM). The HTTP NIO connector is used by default in JBoss Enterprise Web Server. (CVE-2011-2526) Red Hat would like to thank oCERT for reporting CVE-2011-4858, and the Apache Tomcat project for reporting CVE-2011-2526. oCERT acknowledges Julian Walde and Alexander Klink as the original reporters of CVE-2011-4858.
    last seen 2017-10-29
    modified 2017-01-05
    plugin id 78925
    published 2014-11-08
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=78925
    title RHEL 5 / 6 : JBoss Web Server (RHSA-2012:0682)
  • NASL family Web Servers
    NASL id TOMCAT_7_0_19.NASL
    description According to its self-reported version number, the instance of Apache Tomcat 7.x listening on the remote host is prior to 7.0.17. It is, therefore, affected by the following vulnerabilities : - An error handling issue exists related to the MemoryUserDatabase that allows user passwords to be disclosed through log files. (CVE-2011-2204) - If loaded before other web applications, a malicious web application can potentially access or modify the web.xml, context.xml, and TLD files of other web applications on the system. (CVE-2011-2481) - An input validation error exists that allows a local attacker to either bypass security or carry out denial of service attacks when the APR or NIO connectors are enabled. (CVE-2011-2526) Note that Nessus has not tested for these issues but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version number.
    last seen 2018-01-26
    modified 2018-01-24
    plugin id 55759
    published 2011-08-03
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=55759
    title Apache Tomcat 7.x < 7.0.17 Multiple Vulnerabilities
oval via4
  • accepted 2015-04-20T04:00:39.823-04:00
    class vulnerability
    contributors
    • name Yamini Mohan R
      organization Hewlett-Packard
    • name Sushant Kumar Singh
      organization Hewlett-Packard
    • name Prashant Kumar
      organization Hewlett-Packard
    • name Mike Cokus
      organization The MITRE Corporation
    description Apache Tomcat 5.5.x before 5.5.34, 6.x before 6.0.33, and 7.x before 7.0.19, when sendfile is enabled for the HTTP APR or HTTP NIO connector, does not validate certain request attributes, which allows local users to bypass intended file access restrictions or cause a denial of service (infinite loop or JVM crash) by leveraging an untrusted web application.
    family unix
    id oval:org.mitre.oval:def:14573
    status accepted
    submitted 2012-01-30T11:36:29.000-05:00
    title HP-UX Apache Running Tomcat Servlet Engine, Remote Information Disclosure, Authentication Bypass, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), Unauthorized Access, Denial of Service (DoS)
    version 38
  • accepted 2015-04-20T04:01:25.501-04:00
    class vulnerability
    contributors
    • name Ganesh Manal
      organization Hewlett-Packard
    • name Sushant Kumar Singh
      organization Hewlett-Packard
    • name Prashant Kumar
      organization Hewlett-Packard
    • name Mike Cokus
      organization The MITRE Corporation
    description Apache Tomcat 5.5.x before 5.5.34, 6.x before 6.0.33, and 7.x before 7.0.19, when sendfile is enabled for the HTTP APR or HTTP NIO connector, does not validate certain request attributes, which allows local users to bypass intended file access restrictions or cause a denial of service (infinite loop or JVM crash) by leveraging an untrusted web application.
    family unix
    id oval:org.mitre.oval:def:19514
    status accepted
    submitted 2013-11-22T11:43:28.000-05:00
    title HP-UX Apache Running Tomcat Servlet Engine, Remote Denial of Service (DoS), Access Restriction Bypass, Unauthorized Modification and Other Vulnerabilities
    version 38
redhat via4
advisories
  • rhsa
    id RHSA-2012:0074
  • rhsa
    id RHSA-2012:0075
  • rhsa
    id RHSA-2012:0076
  • rhsa
    id RHSA-2012:0077
  • rhsa
    id RHSA-2012:0078
  • rhsa
    id RHSA-2012:0325
rpms
  • tomcat6-docs-webapp-0:6.0.24-35.el6_1
  • tomcat6-webapps-0:6.0.24-35.el6_1
  • tomcat6-lib-0:6.0.24-35.el6_1
  • tomcat6-jsp-2.1-api-0:6.0.24-35.el6_1
  • tomcat6-javadoc-0:6.0.24-35.el6_1
  • tomcat6-el-2.1-api-0:6.0.24-35.el6_1
  • tomcat6-admin-webapps-0:6.0.24-35.el6_1
  • tomcat6-servlet-2.5-api-0:6.0.24-35.el6_1
  • tomcat6-0:6.0.24-35.el6_1
refmap via4
bid 48667
bugtraq 20110713 [SECURITY] CVE-2011-2526 Apache Tomcat Information disclosure and availability vulnerabilities
confirm
debian DSA-2401
hp
  • HPSBOV02762
  • HPSBST02955
  • HPSBUX02725
  • HPSBUX02860
  • SSRT100627
  • SSRT100825
  • SSRT101146
mandriva MDVSA-2011:156
osvdb
  • 73797
  • 73798
sectrack 1025788
secunia
  • 45232
  • 48308
  • 57126
xf tomcat-sendfile-info-disclosure(68541)
Last major update 22-08-2016 - 22:03
Published 14-07-2011 - 19:55
Last modified 05-01-2018 - 21:29
Back to Top