Exploit Intelligence Platform

Updated 3h ago

Search and track vulnerabilities with real-time exploit intelligence. Cross-reference CVEs against public exploits from ExploitDB, Metasploit, GitHub, and Nuclei — with CVSS and EPSS scoring, CISA KEV monitoring, and AI-powered exploit analysis.

357,181 CVEs tracked 54,422 with exploits 5,027 exploited in wild 1,619 CISA KEV 4,187 Nuclei templates 55,153 vendors 47,490 researchers
267 results Clear all
CVE-2024-52046 9.8 CRITICAL EPSS 0.56
Apache MINA 2.0.0-2.0.26, 2.1.0-2.1.9, 2.2.0-2.2.3 - Remote Code Execution via ObjectSerializationDecoder
The ObjectSerializationDecoder in Apache MINA uses Java’s native deserialization protocol to process incoming serialized data but lacks the necessary security checks and defenses. This vulnerability allows attackers to exploit the deserialization process by sending specially crafted malicious serialized data, potentially leading to remote code execution (RCE) attacks. This issue affects MINA core versions 2.0.X, 2.1.X and 2.2.X, and will be fixed by the releases 2.0.27, 2.1.10 and 2.2.4. It's also important to note that an application using MINA core library will only be affected if the IoBuffer#getObject() method is called, and this specific method is potentially called when adding a ProtocolCodecFilter instance using the ObjectSerializationCodecFactory class in the filter chain. If your application is specifically using those classes, you have to upgrade to the latest version of MINA core library. Upgrading will  not be enough: you also need to explicitly allow the classes the decoder will accept in the ObjectSerializationDecoder instance, using one of the three new methods: /**      * Accept class names where the supplied ClassNameMatcher matches for * deserialization, unless they are otherwise rejected. * * @param classNameMatcher the matcher to use */ public void accept(ClassNameMatcher classNameMatcher) /** * Accept class names that match the supplied pattern for * deserialization, unless they are otherwise rejected. * * @param pattern standard Java regexp */ public void accept(Pattern pattern) /** * Accept the wildcard specified classes for deserialization, * unless they are otherwise rejected. * * @param patterns Wildcard file name patterns as defined by * {@link org.apache.commons.io.FilenameUtils#wildcardMatch(String, String) FilenameUtils.wildcardMatch} */ public void accept(String... patterns) By default, the decoder will reject *all* classes that will be present in the incoming data. Note: The FtpServer, SSHd and Vysper sub-project are not affected by this issue.
CVE-2024-56337 9.8 CRITICAL 1 PoC Analysis EPSS 0.13
Apache Tomcat 9.0.0-9.0.97, 10.1.0-M1-10.1.33, 11.0.0-M1-11.0.1 - Time-of-check Time-of-use Race Condition
Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition vulnerability in Apache Tomcat. This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.1, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.33, from 9.0.0.M1 through 9.0.97. The following versions were EOL at the time the CVE was created but are known to be affected: 8.5.0 though 8.5.100. Other, older, EOL versions may also be affected. The mitigation for CVE-2024-50379 was incomplete. Users running Tomcat on a case insensitive file system with the default servlet write enabled (readonly initialisation parameter set to the non-default value of false) may need additional configuration to fully mitigate CVE-2024-50379 depending on which version of Java they are using with Tomcat: - running on Java 8 or Java 11: the system property sun.io.useCanonCaches must be explicitly set to false (it defaults to true) - running on Java 17: the system property sun.io.useCanonCaches, if set, must be set to false (it defaults to false) - running on Java 21 onwards: no further configuration is required (the system property and the problematic cache have been removed) Tomcat 11.0.3, 10.1.35 and 9.0.99 onwards will include checks that sun.io.useCanonCaches is set appropriately before allowing the default servlet to be write enabled on a case insensitive file system. Tomcat will also set sun.io.useCanonCaches to false by default where it can.
CVE-2024-56128 5.3 MEDIUM EPSS 0.01
Apache Kafka 0.10.2.0-3.9.0 - Authentication Bypass via SCRAM Nonce Validation Omission
Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm in Apache Kafka's SCRAM implementation. Issue Summary: Apache Kafka's implementation of the Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) did not fully adhere to the requirements of RFC 5802 [1]. Specifically, as per RFC 5802, the server must verify that the nonce sent by the client in the second message matches the nonce sent by the server in its first message. However, Kafka's SCRAM implementation did not perform this validation. Impact: This vulnerability is exploitable only when an attacker has plaintext access to the SCRAM authentication exchange. However, the usage of SCRAM over plaintext is strongly discouraged as it is considered an insecure practice [2]. Apache Kafka recommends deploying SCRAM exclusively with TLS encryption to protect SCRAM exchanges from interception [3]. Deployments using SCRAM with TLS are not affected by this issue. How to Detect If You Are Impacted: If your deployment uses SCRAM authentication over plaintext communication channels (without TLS encryption), you are likely impacted. To check if TLS is enabled, review your server.properties configuration file for listeners property. If you have SASL_PLAINTEXT in the listeners, then you are likely impacted. Fix Details: The issue has been addressed by introducing nonce verification in the final message of the SCRAM authentication exchange to ensure compliance with RFC 5802. Affected Versions: Apache Kafka versions 0.10.2.0 through 3.9.0, excluding the fixed versions below. Fixed Versions: 3.9.0 3.8.1 3.7.2 Users are advised to upgrade to 3.7.2 or later to mitigate this issue. Recommendations for Mitigation: Users unable to upgrade to the fixed versions can mitigate the issue by: - Using TLS with SCRAM Authentication: Always deploy SCRAM over TLS to encrypt authentication exchanges and protect against interception. - Considering Alternative Authentication Mechanisms: Evaluate alternative authentication mechanisms, such as PLAIN, Kerberos or OAuth with TLS, which provide additional layers of security.