If Apache Tomcat 8.5.0 to 8.5.82, 9.0.0-M1 to 9.0.67, 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.26 or 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.0 was configured to ignore invalid HTTP headers via setting rejectIllegalHeader to false (the default for 8.5.x only), Tomcat did not reject a request containing an invalid Content-Length header making a request smuggling attack possible if Tomcat was located behind a reverse proxy that also failed to reject the request with the invalid header.

The simplified implementation of blocking reads and writes introduced in Tomcat 10 and back-ported to Tomcat 9.0.47 onwards exposed a long standing (but extremely hard to trigger) concurrency bug in Apache Tomcat 10.1.0 to 10.1.0-M12, 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.18, 9.0.0-M1 to 9.0.60 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.77 that could cause client connections to share an Http11Processor instance resulting in responses, or part responses, to be received by the wrong client.

In Apache Tomcat 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.0-M16, 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.22, 9.0.30 to 9.0.64 and 8.5.50 to 8.5.81 the Form authentication example in the examples web application displayed user provided data without filtering, exposing a XSS vulnerability.

The documentation of Apache Tomcat 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.0-M14, 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.20, 9.0.13 to 9.0.62 and 8.5.38 to 8.5.78 for the EncryptInterceptor incorrectly stated it enabled Tomcat clustering to run over an untrusted network. This was not correct. While the EncryptInterceptor does provide confidentiality and integrity protection, it does not protect against all risks associated with running over any untrusted network, particularly DoS risks.

The fix for bug CVE-2020-9484 introduced a time of check, time of use vulnerability into Apache Tomcat 10.1.0-M1 to 10.1.0-M8, 10.0.0-M5 to 10.0.14, 9.0.35 to 9.0.56 and 8.5.55 to 8.5.73 that allowed a local attacker to perform actions with the privileges of the user that the Tomcat process is using. This issue is only exploitable when Tomcat is configured to persist sessions using the FileStore.

Apache Tomcat 8.5.0 to 8.5.63, 9.0.0-M1 to 9.0.43 and 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.2 did not properly validate incoming TLS packets. When Tomcat was configured to use NIO+OpenSSL or NIO2+OpenSSL for TLS, a specially crafted packet could be used to trigger an infinite loop resulting in a denial of service.

A vulnerability in the JNDI Realm of Apache Tomcat allows an attacker to authenticate using variations of a valid user name and/or to bypass some of the protection provided by the LockOut Realm. This issue affects Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.5; 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.45; 8.5.0 to 8.5.65.

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.

When responding to new h2c connection requests, Apache Tomcat versions 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.41 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.61 could duplicate request headers and a limited amount of request body from one request to another meaning user A and user B could both see the results of user A's request.

When serving resources from a network location using the NTFS file system, Apache Tomcat versions 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M9, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.39, 8.5.0 to 8.5.59 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.106 were susceptible to JSP source code disclosure in some configurations. The root cause was the unexpected behaviour of the JRE API File.getCanonicalPath() which in turn was caused by the inconsistent behaviour of the Windows API (FindFirstFileW) in some circumstances.

While investigating bug 64830 it was discovered that Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M9, 9.0.0-M1 to 9.0.39 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.59 could re-use an HTTP request header value from the previous stream received on an HTTP/2 connection for the request associated with the subsequent stream. While this would most likely lead to an error and the closure of the HTTP/2 connection, it is possible that information could leak between requests.