Apache Tomcat: JSESSIONID Cookie missing secure attribute in some configurations
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.
Apache Tomcat request smuggling via malformed content-length
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.
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.
Response mix-up with WebSocket concurrent send and close
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.
High · CVSS 7.5EPSS 73.47%Public exploitFix available
EncryptInterceptor does not provide complete protection on insecure networks
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.
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.
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.
The payload length in a WebSocket frame was not correctly validated in Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M6, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.36, 8.5.0 to 8.5.56 and 7.0.27 to 7.0.104. Invalid payload lengths could trigger an infinite loop. Multiple requests with invalid payload lengths could lead to a denial of service.
An h2c direct connection to Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M6, 9.0.0.M5 to 9.0.36 and 8.5.1 to 8.5.56 did not release the HTTP/1.1 processor after the upgrade to HTTP/2. If a sufficient number of such requests were made, an OutOfMemoryException could occur leading to a denial of service.
A specially crafted sequence of HTTP/2 requests sent to Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M5, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.35 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.55 could trigger high CPU usage for several seconds. If a sufficient number of such requests were made on concurrent HTTP/2 connections, the server could become unresponsive.
Critical · CVSS 9.8EPSS 99.27%In KEVPublic exploitNo fix published
CVE-2020-1938
When using the Apache JServ Protocol (AJP), care must be taken when trusting incoming connections to Apache Tomcat. Tomcat treats AJP connections as having higher trust than, for example, a similar HTTP connection. If such connections are available to an attacker, they can be exploited in ways that may be surprising. In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.30, 8.5.0 to 8.5.50 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.99, Tomcat shipped with an AJP Connector enabled by default that listened on all configured IP addresses. It was expected (and recommended in the security guide) that this Connector would be disabled if not required. This vulnerability report identified a mec
In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.30, 8.5.0 to 8.5.50 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.99 the HTTP header parsing code used an approach to end-of-line parsing that allowed some invalid HTTP headers to be parsed as valid. This led to a possibility of HTTP Request Smuggling if Tomcat was located behind a reverse proxy that incorrectly handled the invalid Transfer-Encoding header in a particular manner. Such a reverse proxy is considered unlikely.
When Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.28, 8.5.0 to 8.5.47, 7.0.0 and 7.0.97 is configured with the JMX Remote Lifecycle Listener, a local attacker without access to the Tomcat process or configuration files is able to manipulate the RMI registry to perform a man-in-the-middle attack to capture user names and passwords used to access the JMX interface. The attacker can then use these credentials to access the JMX interface and gain complete control over the Tomcat instance.
When using FORM authentication with Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.29, 8.5.0 to 8.5.49 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.98 there was a narrow window where an attacker could perform a session fixation attack. The window was considered too narrow for an exploit to be practical but, erring on the side of caution, this issue has been treated as a security vulnerability.