This is a concurrency issue that can result in the wrong caller principal being returned from the session context of an EJB that is configured with a RunAs principal. In particular, the org.jboss.as.ejb3.component.EJBComponent class has an incomingRunAsIdentity field. This field is used by the org.jboss.as.ejb3.security.RunAsPrincipalInterceptor to keep track of the current identity prior to switching to a new identity created using the RunAs principal. The exploit consist that the EJBComponent#incomingRunAsIdentity field is currently just a SecurityIdentity. This means in a concurrent environment, where multiple users are repeatedly invoking an EJB that is configured with a RunAs principal, it's possible for the wrong the caller principal to be returned from EJBComponent#getCallerPrincipal. Similarly, it's also possible for EJBComponent#isCallerInRole to return the wrong value. Both of these methods rely on incomingRunAsIdentity. Affects all versions of JBoss EAP from 7.1.0 and all versions of WildFly 11+ when Elytron is enabled.

The issue appears to be that JBoss EAP 6.4.21 does not parse the field-name in accordance to RFC7230[1] as it returns a 200 instead of a 400.

A flaw was found in Hibernate Validator version 6.1.2.Final. A bug in the message interpolation processor enables invalid EL expressions to be evaluated as if they were valid. This flaw allows attackers to bypass input sanitation (escaping, stripping) controls that developers may have put in place when handling user-controlled data in error messages.

A flaw was found in wildfly-core before 7.2.5.GA. The Management users with Monitor, Auditor and Deployer Roles should not be allowed to modify the runtime state of the server

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 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 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 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 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.

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.