Show filters
6 Total Results
Displaying 1-6 of 6
Sort by:
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2011-1483
Disclosure Date: July 29, 2013 (last updated October 05, 2023)
wsf/common/DOMUtils.java in JBossWS Native in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 4.2.0.CP09, 4.3, and 5.1.1; JBoss Enterprise Portal Platform 4.3.CP06 and 5.1.1; JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform 4.2.CP05, 4.3.CP05, and 5.1.0; JBoss Communications Platform 1.2.11 and 5.1.1; JBoss Enterprise BRMS Platform 5.1.0; and JBoss Enterprise Web Platform 5.1.1 does not properly handle recursion during entity expansion, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory and CPU consumption) via a crafted request containing an XML document with a DOCTYPE declaration and a large number of nested entity references, a similar issue to CVE-2003-1564.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2013-2165
Disclosure Date: July 23, 2013 (last updated October 05, 2023)
ResourceBuilderImpl.java in the RichFaces 3.x through 5.x implementation in Red Hat JBoss Web Framework Kit before 2.3.0, Red Hat JBoss Web Platform through 5.2.0, Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform through 4.3.0 CP10 and 5.x through 5.2.0, Red Hat JBoss BRMS through 5.3.1, Red Hat JBoss SOA Platform through 4.3.0 CP05 and 5.x through 5.3.1, Red Hat JBoss Portal through 4.3 CP07 and 5.x through 5.2.2, and Red Hat JBoss Operations Network through 2.4.2 and 3.x through 3.1.2 does not restrict the classes for which deserialization methods can be called, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted serialized data.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2012-1167
Disclosure Date: November 23, 2012 (last updated October 05, 2023)
The JBoss Server in JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 5.1.x before 5.1.2 and 5.2.x before 5.2.2, Web Platform before 5.1.2, BRMS Platform before 5.3.0, and SOA Platform before 5.3.0, when the server is configured to use the JaccAuthorizationRealm and the ignoreBaseDecision property is set to true on the JBossWebRealm, does not properly check the permissions created by the WebPermissionMapping class, which allows remote authenticated users to access arbitrary applications.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2011-2196
Disclosure Date: July 27, 2011 (last updated November 08, 2023)
jboss-seam.jar in the JBoss Seam 2 framework 2.2.x and earlier, as distributed in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform 4.3.0.CP05 and 5.1.0; JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBoss EAP or JBEAP) 4.3.0, 4.3.0.CP09, and 5.1.1; and JBoss Enterprise Web Platform 5.1.1, does not properly restrict use of Expression Language (EL) statements in FacesMessages during page exception handling, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary Java code via a crafted URL to an application. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2011-1484.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2010-3862
Disclosure Date: December 30, 2010 (last updated October 04, 2023)
The org.jboss.remoting.transport.bisocket.BisocketServerInvoker$SecondaryServerSocketThread.run method in JBoss Remoting 2.2.x before 2.2.3.SP4 and 2.5.x before 2.5.3.SP2 in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBoss EAP or JBEAP) 4.3 through 4.3.0.CP09, and 5.1.0; and JBoss Enterprise Web Platform (aka JBEWP) 5.1.0; allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon outage) by establishing a bisocket control connection TCP session, and then not sending any application data.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2010-4265
Disclosure Date: December 30, 2010 (last updated November 08, 2023)
The org.jboss.remoting.transport.bisocket.BisocketServerInvoker$SecondaryServerSocketThread.run method in JBoss Remoting 2.2.x before 2.2.3.SP4 and 2.5.x before 2.5.3.SP2 in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBoss EAP or JBEAP) 4.3 through 4.3.0.CP09 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon outage) by establishing a bisocket control connection TCP session, and then not sending any application data, related to a missing CVE-2010-3862 patch. NOTE: this can be considered a duplicate of CVE-2010-3862 because a missing patch should not be assigned a separate CVE identifier.
0