This could be abused in applications that pass attacker-controllable data to those APIs, giving the attacker more control over the resulting bytecode than otherwise expected. However, due to an out-of-bounds writing issue, these APIs can be used to produce arbitrary bytecode. Users should upgrade to 0.13.3 which addresses this issue or use a later version of Java to avoid it.Īn improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Sling App CMS version 1.1.0 and prior may allow an authenticated remote attacker to perform a reflected cross site scripting (XSS) attack in the taxonomy management feature.Īpache Commons BCEL has a number of APIs that would normally only allow changing specific class characteristics. In Apache Airflow versions prior to 2.4.2, the "Trigger DAG with config" screen was susceptible to XSS attacks via the `origin` query argument.Īpache IoTDB version 0.12.2 to 0.12.6, 0.13.0 to 0.13.2 are vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack when accepting untrusted patterns for REGEXP queries with Java 8. ![]() (This approach is not without its drawbacks pulling in new fixes can also pull in new problems.In Apache Airflow versions prior to 2.4.2, there was an open redirect in the webserver's `/confirm` endpoint. Consumers can get a patched version on the next build after the patch is available, which propagates up the dependencies quickly. Open ranges allow the resolution algorithm to select the most recently released version that satisfies dependency requirements, thereby pulling in new fixes. This practice is in contrast to other ecosystems, such as npm, where it’s common for developers to specify open ranges for dependency requirements. Propagating a fix often requires explicit action by the maintainers to update the dependency requirements to a patched version. In the Java ecosystem, it’s common practice to specify “ soft” version requirements - exact versions that are used by the resolution algorithm if no other version of the same package appears earlier in the dependency graph. This exploitable feature was enabled by default in many versions of the library.Īnother difficulty is caused by ecosystem-level choices in the dependency resolution algorithm and requirement specification conventions. The vulnerabilities allow an attacker to perform remote code execution by exploiting the insecure JNDI lookups feature exposed by the logging library log4j. ![]() More than 35,000 Java packages, amounting to over 8% of the Maven Central repository (the most significant Java package repository), have been impacted by the recently disclosed log4j vulnerabilities ( 1, 2), with widespread fallout across the software industry. The linked list, which continues to be updated, only includes packages which depend on log4j-core. 25% of affected packages have fixed versions available. The ecosystem impact numbers for just log4j-core, as of 19th December are over 17,000 packages affected, which is roughly 4% of the ecosystem. ![]() Since then, the CVE has been updated with the clarification that only log4j-core is affected. ![]() The below numbers were calculated based on both log4j-core and log4j-api, as both were listed on the CVE.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |