In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M18 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.12, the handling of an HTTP/2 GOAWAY frame for a connection did not close streams associated with that connection that were currently waiting for a WINDOW_UPDATE before allowing the application to write more data. These waiting streams each consumed a thread. A malicious client could therefore construct a series of HTTP/2 requests that would consume all available processing threads.

In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M18 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.12, the handling of an HTTP/2 GOAWAY frame for a connection did not close streams associated with that connection that were currently waiting for a WINDOW_UPDATE before allowing the application to write more data. These waiting streams each consumed a thread. A malicious client could therefore construct a series of HTTP/2 requests that would consume all available processing threads.

In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M18 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.12, the handling of an HTTP/2 GOAWAY frame for a connection did not close streams associated with that connection that were currently waiting for a WINDOW_UPDATE before allowing the application to write more data. These waiting streams each consumed a thread. A malicious client could therefore construct a series of HTTP/2 requests that would consume all available processing threads.

In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M18 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.12, the handli ...

While investigating bug 60718, it was noticed that some calls to application listeners in Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M17, 8.5.0 to 8.5.11, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.41, and 7.0.0 to 7.0.75 did not use the appropriate facade object. When running an untrusted application under a SecurityManager, it was therefore possible for that untrusted application to retain a reference to the request or response object and thereby access and/or modify information associated with another web application.

While investigating bug 60718, it was noticed that some calls to application listeners in Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M17, 8.5.0 to 8.5.11, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.41, and 7.0.0 to 7.0.75 did not use the appropriate facade object. When running an untrusted application under a SecurityManager, it was therefore possible for that untrusted application to retain a reference to the request or response object and thereby access and/or modify information associated with another web application.

While investigating bug 60718, it was noticed that some calls to application listeners in Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M17, 8.5.0 to 8.5.11, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.41, and 7.0.0 to 7.0.75 did not use the appropriate facade object. When running an untrusted application under a SecurityManager, it was therefore possible for that untrusted application to retain a reference to the request or response object and thereby access and/or modify information associated with another web application.

While investigating bug 60718, it was noticed that some calls to appli ...

A bug in the handling of the pipelined requests in Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M18, 8.5.0 to 8.5.12, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.42, 7.0.0 to 7.0.76, and 6.0.0 to 6.0.52, when send file was used, results in the pipelined request being lost when send file processing of the previous request completed. This could result in responses appearing to be sent for the wrong request. For example, a user agent that sent requests A, B and C could see the correct response for request A, the response for request C for request B and no response for request C.

A bug in the handling of the pipelined requests in Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M18, 8.5.0 to 8.5.12, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.42, 7.0.0 to 7.0.76, and 6.0.0 to 6.0.52, when send file was used, results in the pipelined request being lost when send file processing of the previous request completed. This could result in responses appearing to be sent for the wrong request. For example, a user agent that sent requests A, B and C could see the correct response for request A, the response for request C for request B and no response for request C.

A bug in the handling of the pipelined requests in Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M18, 8.5.0 to 8.5.12, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.42, 7.0.0 to 7.0.76, and 6.0.0 to 6.0.52, when send file was used, results in the pipelined request being lost when send file processing of the previous request completed. This could result in responses appearing to be sent for the wrong request. For example, a user agent that sent requests A, B and C could see the correct response for request A, the response for request C for request B and no response for request C.

A bug in the handling of the pipelined requests in Apache Tomcat 9.0.0 ...

As part of the fix for bug 61201, the documentation for Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M22 to 9.0.1, 8.5.16 to 8.5.23, 8.0.45 to 8.0.47 and 7.0.79 to 7.0.82 included an updated description of the search algorithm used by the CGI Servlet to identify which script to execute. The update was not correct. As a result, some scripts may have failed to execute as expected and other scripts may have been executed unexpectedly. Note that the behaviour of the CGI servlet has remained unchanged in this regard. It is only the documentation of the behaviour that was wrong and has been corrected.

As part of the fix for bug 61201, the documentation for Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M22 to 9.0.1, 8.5.16 to 8.5.23, 8.0.45 to 8.0.47 and 7.0.79 to 7.0.82 included an updated description of the search algorithm used by the CGI Servlet to identify which script to execute. The update was not correct. As a result, some scripts may have failed to execute as expected and other scripts may have been executed unexpectedly. Note that the behaviour of the CGI servlet has remained unchanged in this regard. It is only the documentation of the behaviour that was wrong and has been corrected.

As part of the fix for bug 61201, the documentation for Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M22 to 9.0.1, 8.5.16 to 8.5.23, 8.0.45 to 8.0.47 and 7.0.79 to 7.0.82 included an updated description of the search algorithm used by the CGI Servlet to identify which script to execute. The update was not correct. As a result, some scripts may have failed to execute as expected and other scripts may have been executed unexpectedly. Note that the behaviour of the CGI servlet has remained unchanged in this regard. It is only the documentation of the behaviour that was wrong and has been corrected.

As part of the fix for bug 61201, the documentation for Apache Tomcat ...

When using a VirtualDirContext with Apache Tomcat 7.0.0 to 7.0.80 it was possible to bypass security constraints and/or view the source code of JSPs for resources served by the VirtualDirContext using a specially crafted request.

When using a VirtualDirContext with Apache Tomcat 7.0.0 to 7.0.80 it was possible to bypass security constraints and/or view the source code of JSPs for resources served by the VirtualDirContext using a specially crafted request.

When using a VirtualDirContext with Apache Tomcat 7.0.0 to 7.0.80 it was possible to bypass security constraints and/or view the source code of JSPs for resources served by the VirtualDirContext using a specially crafted request.

When using a VirtualDirContext with Apache Tomcat 7.0.0 to 7.0.80 it w ...