| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Apache Traffic Server 6.0.0 to 6.2.0 are affected by an HPACK Bomb Attack. |
| Unspecified vulnerability in the HTTP/2 experimental feature in Apache Traffic Server 5.3.x before 5.3.2 has unknown impact and attack vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-5206. |
| Unspecified vulnerability in the HTTP/2 experimental feature in Apache Traffic Server before 5.3.x before 5.3.2 has unknown impact and attack vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-5168. |
| Apache Traffic Server 5.1.x before 5.1.1 allows remote attackers to bypass access restrictions by leveraging failure to properly tunnel remap requests using CONNECT. |
| The HTTP/2 experimental feature in Apache Traffic Server 5.3.x before 5.3.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds access and daemon crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via vectors related to the (1) frame_handlers array or (2) set_dynamic_table_size function. |
| Apache Traffic Server before 6.2.1 generates a coredump when there is a mismatch between content length and chunked encoding. |
| Apache Traffic Server before 5.1.2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via unspecified vectors, related to internal buffer sizing. |
| Unspecified vulnerability in Apache Traffic Server 3.x through 3.2.5, 4.x before 4.2.1.1, and 5.x before 5.0.1 has unknown impact and attack vectors, possibly related to health checks. |
| Apache Traffic Server 2.0.x and 3.0.x before 3.0.4 and 3.1.x before 3.1.3 does not properly allocate heap memory, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon crash) via a long HTTP Host header. |
| Apache Traffic Server before 2.0.1, and 2.1.x before 2.1.2-unstable, does not properly choose DNS source ports and transaction IDs, and does not properly use DNS query fields to validate responses, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to poison the internal DNS cache via a crafted response. |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a flood of empty frames, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of frames with an empty payload and without the end-of-stream flag. These frames can be DATA, HEADERS, CONTINUATION and/or PUSH_PROMISE. The peer spends time processing each frame disproportionate to attack bandwidth. This can consume excess CPU. |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to unconstrained interal data buffering, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens the HTTP/2 window so the peer can send without constraint; however, they leave the TCP window closed so the peer cannot actually write (many of) the bytes on the wire. The attacker then sends a stream of requests for a large response object. Depending on how the servers queue the responses, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both. |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a settings flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of SETTINGS frames to the peer. Since the RFC requires that the peer reply with one acknowledgement per SETTINGS frame, an empty SETTINGS frame is almost equivalent in behavior to a ping. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both. |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both. |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a reset flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens a number of streams and sends an invalid request over each stream that should solicit a stream of RST_STREAM frames from the peer. Depending on how the peer queues the RST_STREAM frames, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both. |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a header leak, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of headers with a 0-length header name and 0-length header value, optionally Huffman encoded into 1-byte or greater headers. Some implementations allocate memory for these headers and keep the allocation alive until the session dies. This can consume excess memory. |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU. |
| In bta_hd_set_report_act of bta_hd_act.cc, there is a possible out-of-bounds read due to an integer overflow. This could lead to remote information disclosure in the Bluetooth service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. |
| Stack-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability in cachekey plugin of Apache Traffic Server. This issue affects Apache Traffic Server 7.0.0 to 7.1.12, 8.0.0 to 8.1.1, 9.0.0 to 9.0.1. |
| Improper Input Validation vulnerability in HTTP/2 of Apache Traffic Server allows an attacker to DOS the server. This issue affects Apache Traffic Server 7.0.0 to 7.1.12, 8.0.0 to 8.1.1, 9.0.0 to 9.0.1. |
