Tomcat

URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect') vulnerability in FORM authentication feature Apache Tomcat.This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.0-M10, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.0.12, from 9.0.0-M1 through 9.0.79 and from 8.5.0 through 8.5.92. Older, EOL versions may also be affected. The vulnerability is limited to the ROOT (default) web application.Show less

A regression in the fix for bug 66512 in Apache Tomcat 11.0.0-M5, 10.1.8, 9.0.74 and 8.5.88 meant that, if a response did not include any HTTP headers no AJP SEND_HEADERS messare woudl be sent for the response which in turn meant that at least one AJP proxy (mod_proxy_ajp) would use the response headers from the previous request leading to an information leak.Show less

The fix for CVE-2023-24998 was incomplete for Apache Tomcat 11.0.0-M2 to 11.0.0-M4, 10.1.5 to 10.1.7, 9.0.71 to 9.0.73 and 8.5.85 to 8.5.87. If non-default HTTP connector settings were used such that the maxParameterCount could be reached using query string parameters and a request was submitted that supplied exactly maxParameterCount parameters in the query string, the limit for uploaded request parts could be bypassed with the potential for a denial of service to occur.Show less

When using the RemoteIpFilter with requests received from a reverse proxy via HTTP that include the X-Forwarded-Proto header set to https, session cookies created by Apache Tomcat 11.0.0-M1 to 11.0.0.-M2, 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.5, 9.0.0-M1 to 9.0.71 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.85 did not include the secure attribute. This could result in the user agent transmitting the session cookie over an insecure channel. Older, EOL versions may also be affected.Show less

The JsonErrorReportValve in Apache Tomcat 8.5.83, 9.0.40 to 9.0.68 and 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.1 did not escape the type, message or description values. In some circumstances these are constructed from user provided data and it was therefore possible for users to supply values that invalidated or manipulated the JSON output.Show less

If Apache Tomcat 8.5.0 to 8.5.82, 9.0.0-M1 to 9.0.67, 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.26 or 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.0 was configured to ignore invalid HTTP headers via setting rejectIllegalHeader to false (the default for 8.5.x only), Tomcat did not reject a request containing an invalid Content-Length header making a request smuggling attack possible if Tomcat was located behind a reverse proxy that also failed to reject the request with the invalid header.Show less

The simplified implementation of blocking reads and writes introduced in Tomcat 10 and back-ported to Tomcat 9.0.47 onwards exposed a long standing (but extremely hard to trigger) concurrency bug in Apache Tomcat 10.1.0 to 10.1.0-M12, 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.18, 9.0.0-M1 to 9.0.60 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.77 that could cause client connections to share an Http11Processor instance resulting in responses, or part responses, to be received by the wrong client.Show less

In Apache Tomcat 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.0-M16, 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.22, 9.0.30 to 9.0.64 and 8.5.50 to 8.5.81 the Form authentication example in the examples web application displayed user provided data without filtering, exposing a XSS vulnerability.Show less

If a web application sends a WebSocket message concurrently with the WebSocket connection closing when running on Apache Tomcat 8.5.0 to 8.5.75 or Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.20, it is possible that the application will continue to use the socket after it has been closed. The error handling triggered in this case could cause the a pooled object to be placed in the pool twice. This could result in subsequent connections using the same object concurrently which could result in data being returned to the wrong use and/or other errors.Show less

The documentation of Apache Tomcat 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.0-M14, 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.20, 9.0.13 to 9.0.62 and 8.5.38 to 8.5.78 for the EncryptInterceptor incorrectly stated it enabled Tomcat clustering to run over an untrusted network. This was not correct. While the EncryptInterceptor does provide confidentiality and integrity protection, it does not protect against all risks associated with running over any untrusted network, particularly DoS risks.Show less

The fix for bug CVE-2020-9484 introduced a time of check, time of use vulnerability into Apache Tomcat 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.0-M8, 10.0.0-M5 to 10.0.14, 9.0.35 to 9.0.56 and 8.5.55 to 8.5.73 that allowed a local attacker to perform actions with the privileges of the user that the Tomcat process is using. This issue is only exploitable when Tomcat is configured to persist sessions using the FileStore.Show less

The fix for bug 63362 present in Apache Tomcat 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.0-M5, 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.11, 9.0.40 to 9.0.53 and 8.5.60 to 8.5.71 introduced a memory leak. The object introduced to collect metrics for HTTP upgrade connections was not released for WebSocket connections once the connection was closed. This created a memory leak that, over time, could lead to a denial of service via an OutOfMemoryError.Show less

Apache Tomcat 8.5.0 to 8.5.63, 9.0.0-M1 to 9.0.43 and 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.2 did not properly validate incoming TLS packets. When Tomcat was configured to use NIO+OpenSSL or NIO2+OpenSSL for TLS, a specially crafted packet could be used to trigger an infinite loop resulting in a denial of service.Show less

Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.6, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.46 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.66 did not correctly parse the HTTP transfer-encoding request header in some circumstances leading to the possibility to request smuggling when used with a reverse proxy. Specifically: - Tomcat incorrectly ignored the transfer encoding header if the client declared it would only accept an HTTP/1.0 response; - Tomcat honoured the identify encoding; and - Tomcat did not ensure that, if present, the chunked encoding was the final encoding.Show less

A vulnerability in the JNDI Realm of Apache Tomcat allows an attacker to authenticate using variations of a valid user name and/or to bypass some of the protection provided by the LockOut Realm. This issue affects Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.5; 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.45; 8.5.0 to 8.5.65.Show less

A vulnerability in Apache Tomcat allows an attacker to remotely trigger a denial of service. An error introduced as part of a change to improve error handling during non-blocking I/O meant that the error flag associated with the Request object was not reset between requests. This meant that once a non-blocking I/O error occurred, all future requests handled by that request object would fail. Users were able to trigger non-blocking I/O errors, e.g. by dropping a connection, thereby creating the possibility of triggering a DoS. Applications that do not use non-blocking I/O are not exposed to this vulnerability. This issue affects Apache Tomcat 10.0.3 to 10.0.4; 9.0.44; 8.5.64.Show less

The fix for CVE-2020-9484 was incomplete. When using Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.41, 8.5.0 to 8.5.61 or 7.0.0. to 7.0.107 with a configuration edge case that was highly unlikely to be used, the Tomcat instance was still vulnerable to CVE-2020-9494. Note that both the previously published prerequisites for CVE-2020-9484 and the previously published mitigations for CVE-2020-9484 also apply to this issue.Show less

When responding to new h2c connection requests, Apache Tomcat versions 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.41 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.61 could duplicate request headers and a limited amount of request body from one request to another meaning user A and user B could both see the results of user A's request.Show less

When serving resources from a network location using the NTFS file system, Apache Tomcat versions 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M9, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.39, 8.5.0 to 8.5.59 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.106 were susceptible to JSP source code disclosure in some configurations. The root cause was the unexpected behaviour of the JRE API File.getCanonicalPath() which in turn was caused by the inconsistent behaviour of the Windows API (FindFirstFileW) in some circumstances.Show less

While investigating bug 64830 it was discovered that Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M9, 9.0.0-M1 to 9.0.39 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.59 could re-use an HTTP request header value from the previous stream received on an HTTP/2 connection for the request associated with the subsequent stream. While this would most likely lead to an error and the closure of the HTTP/2 connection, it is possible that information could leak between requests.Show less