In Eclipse Jetty versions 1.0 thru 9.4.32.v20200930, 10.0.0.alpha1 thru 10.0.0.beta2, and 11.0.0.alpha1 thru 11.0.0.beta2O, on Unix like systems, the system's temporary directory is shared between all users on that system. A collocated user can observe the process of creating a temporary sub directory in the shared temporary directory and race to complete the creation of the temporary subdirectory. If the attacker wins the race then they will have read and write permission to the subdirectory used to unpack web applications, including their WEB-INF/lib jar files and JSP files. If any code is ever executed out of this temporary directory, this can lead to a local privilege escalation vulnerability.

There exists a race condition between the deletion of the temporary file and the creation of the temporary directory in `webkit` subproject of HTML/Java API version 1.7. A similar vulnerability has recently been disclosed in other Java projects and the fix in HTML/Java API version 1.7.1 follows theirs: To avoid local privilege escalation version 1.7.1 creates the temporary directory atomically without dealing with the temporary file: https://github.com/apache/netbeans-html4j/commit/fa70e507e5555e1adb4f6518479fc408a7abd0e6

suexec in Apache HTTP Server (httpd) 2.2.3 does not verify combinations of user and group IDs on the command line, which might allow local users to leverage other vulnerabilities to create arbitrary UID/GID owned files if /proc is mounted. NOTE: the researcher, who is reliable, claims that the vendor disputes the issue because "the attacks described rely on an insecure server configuration" in which the user "has write access to the document root." In addition, because this is dependent on other vulnerabilities, perhaps this is resultant and should not be included in CVE.

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 Apache Tomcat versions 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M4, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.34, 8.5.0 to 8.5.54 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.103 if a) an attacker is able to control the contents and name of a file on the server; and b) the server is configured to use the PersistenceManager with a FileStore; and c) the PersistenceManager is configured with sessionAttributeValueClassNameFilter="null" (the default unless a SecurityManager is used) or a sufficiently lax filter to allow the attacker provided object to be deserialized; and d) the attacker knows the relative file path from the storage location used by FileStore to the file the attacker has control over; then, using a specifically crafted request, the attacker will be able to trigger remote code execution via deserialization of the file under their control. Note that all of conditions a) to d) must be true for the attack to succeed.

org/apache/catalina/core/DefaultInstanceManager.java in Apache Tomcat 7.x before 7.0.22 does not properly restrict ContainerServlets in the Manager application, which allows local users to gain privileges by using an untrusted web application to access the Manager application's functionality.

Apache Tomcat 5.5.x before 5.5.34, 6.x before 6.0.33, and 7.x before 7.0.19, when sendfile is enabled for the HTTP APR or HTTP NIO connector, does not validate certain request attributes, which allows local users to bypass intended file access restrictions or cause a denial of service (infinite loop or JVM crash) by leveraging an untrusted web application.

The fix for CVE-2020-9484 was incomplete. When using Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.41, 8.5.0 to 8.5.61 or 7.0.0. to 7.0.107 with a configuration edge case that was highly unlikely to be used, the Tomcat instance was still vulnerable to CVE-2020-9494. Note that both the previously published prerequisites for CVE-2020-9484 and the previously published mitigations for CVE-2020-9484 also apply to this issue.