Communications Performance Intelligence Center Oracle Communications Performance Intelligence Center

Do you want an email whenever new security vulnerabilities are reported in Oracle Communications Performance Intelligence Center?

By the Year

In 2024 there have been 0 vulnerabilities in Oracle Communications Performance Intelligence Center . Communications Performance Intelligence Center did not have any published security vulnerabilities last year.

Year Vulnerabilities Average Score
2024 0 0.00
2023 0 0.00
2022 0 0.00
2021 2 6.85
2020 4 8.53
2019 2 6.60
2018 7 7.74

It may take a day or so for new Communications Performance Intelligence Center vulnerabilities to show up in the stats or in the list of recent security vulnerabilties. Additionally vulnerabilities may be tagged under a different product or component name.

Recent Oracle Communications Performance Intelligence Center Security Vulnerabilities

Apache Log4j2 versions 2.0-alpha1 through 2.16.0 (excluding 2.12.3 and 2.3.1) did not protect

CVE-2021-45105 5.9 - Medium - December 18, 2021

Apache Log4j2 versions 2.0-alpha1 through 2.16.0 (excluding 2.12.3 and 2.3.1) did not protect from uncontrolled recursion from self-referential lookups. This allows an attacker with control over Thread Context Map data to cause a denial of service when a crafted string is interpreted. This issue was fixed in Log4j 2.17.0, 2.12.3, and 2.3.1.

Improper Input Validation

Sudo before 1.9.5p2 contains an off-by-one error

CVE-2021-3156 7.8 - High - January 26, 2021

Sudo before 1.9.5p2 contains an off-by-one error that can result in a heap-based buffer overflow, which allows privilege escalation to root via "sudoedit -s" and a command-line argument that ends with a single backslash character.

off-by-five

regcomp.c in Perl before 5.30.3

CVE-2020-12723 7.5 - High - June 05, 2020

regcomp.c in Perl before 5.30.3 allows a buffer overflow via a crafted regular expression because of recursive S_study_chunk calls.

Classic Buffer Overflow

Perl before 5.30.3 has an integer overflow related to mishandling of a "PL_regkind[OP(n)] == NOTHING" situation

CVE-2020-10878 8.6 - High - June 05, 2020

Perl before 5.30.3 has an integer overflow related to mishandling of a "PL_regkind[OP(n)] == NOTHING" situation. A crafted regular expression could lead to malformed bytecode with a possibility of instruction injection.

Integer Overflow or Wraparound

Perl before 5.30.3 on 32-bit platforms

CVE-2020-10543 8.2 - High - June 05, 2020

Perl before 5.30.3 on 32-bit platforms allows a heap-based buffer overflow because nested regular expression quantifiers have an integer overflow.

Memory Corruption

utility.c in telnetd in netkit telnet through 0.17

CVE-2020-10188 9.8 - Critical - March 06, 2020

utility.c in telnetd in netkit telnet through 0.17 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via short writes or urgent data, because of a buffer overflow involving the netclear and nextitem functions.

Classic Buffer Overflow

In Apache Commons Beanutils 1.9.2, a special BeanIntrospector class was added which

CVE-2019-10086 7.3 - High - August 20, 2019

In Apache Commons Beanutils 1.9.2, a special BeanIntrospector class was added which allows suppressing the ability for an attacker to access the classloader via the class property available on all Java objects. We, however were not using this by default characteristic of the PropertyUtilsBean.

Marshaling, Unmarshaling

If an application encounters a fatal protocol error and then calls SSL_shutdown() twice (once to send a close_notify, and once to receive one) then OpenSSL

CVE-2019-1559 5.9 - Medium - February 27, 2019

If an application encounters a fatal protocol error and then calls SSL_shutdown() twice (once to send a close_notify, and once to receive one) then OpenSSL can respond differently to the calling application if a 0 byte record is received with invalid padding compared to if a 0 byte record is received with an invalid MAC. If the application then behaves differently based on that in a way that is detectable to the remote peer, then this amounts to a padding oracle that could be used to decrypt data. In order for this to be exploitable "non-stitched" ciphersuites must be in use. Stitched ciphersuites are optimised implementations of certain commonly used ciphersuites. Also the application must call SSL_shutdown() twice even if a protocol error has occurred (applications should not do this but some do anyway). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2r (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2q).

Side Channel Attack

Spring Framework (versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.7, versions 4.3.x prior to 4.3.18, and older unsupported versions)

CVE-2018-11039 5.9 - Medium - June 25, 2018

Spring Framework (versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.7, versions 4.3.x prior to 4.3.18, and older unsupported versions) allow web applications to change the HTTP request method to any HTTP method (including TRACE) using the HiddenHttpMethodFilter in Spring MVC. If an application has a pre-existing XSS vulnerability, a malicious user (or attacker) can use this filter to escalate to an XST (Cross Site Tracing) attack.

Spring Framework, versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.6, versions 4.3.x prior to 4.3.17, and older unsupported versions

CVE-2018-1257 6.5 - Medium - May 11, 2018

Spring Framework, versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.6, versions 4.3.x prior to 4.3.17, and older unsupported versions allows applications to expose STOMP over WebSocket endpoints with a simple, in-memory STOMP broker through the spring-messaging module. A malicious user (or attacker) can craft a message to the broker that can lead to a regular expression, denial of service attack.

Spring Framework version 5.0.5 when used in combination with any versions of Spring Security contains an authorization bypass when using method security

CVE-2018-1258 8.8 - High - May 11, 2018

Spring Framework version 5.0.5 when used in combination with any versions of Spring Security contains an authorization bypass when using method security. An unauthorized malicious user can gain unauthorized access to methods that should be restricted.

AuthZ

Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.16 and older unsupported versions

CVE-2018-1275 9.8 - Critical - April 11, 2018

Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.16 and older unsupported versions, allow applications to expose STOMP over WebSocket endpoints with a simple, in-memory STOMP broker through the spring-messaging module. A malicious user (or attacker) can craft a message to the broker that can lead to a remote code execution attack. This CVE addresses the partial fix for CVE-2018-1270 in the 4.3.x branch of the Spring Framework.

Code Injection

Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions

CVE-2018-1270 9.8 - Critical - April 06, 2018

Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, allow applications to expose STOMP over WebSocket endpoints with a simple, in-memory STOMP broker through the spring-messaging module. A malicious user (or attacker) can craft a message to the broker that can lead to a remote code execution attack.

Code Injection

Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions

CVE-2018-1271 5.9 - Medium - April 06, 2018

Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, allow applications to configure Spring MVC to serve static resources (e.g. CSS, JS, images). When static resources are served from a file system on Windows (as opposed to the classpath, or the ServletContext), a malicious user can send a request using a specially crafted URL that can lead a directory traversal attack.

Directory traversal

Spring Framework

CVE-2018-1272 7.5 - High - April 06, 2018

Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, provide client-side support for multipart requests. When Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux server application (server A) receives input from a remote client, and then uses that input to make a multipart request to another server (server B), it can be exposed to an attack, where an extra multipart is inserted in the content of the request from server A, causing server B to use the wrong value for a part it expects. This could to lead privilege escalation, for example, if the part content represents a username or user roles.

Stay on top of Security Vulnerabilities

Want an email whenever new vulnerabilities are published for VMware Spring Framework or by Oracle? Click the Watch button to subscribe.

Oracle
Vendor

subscribe