Apache Tapestry 3.x allows deserialization of untrusted data, leading to remote code execution. This issue is similar to but distinct from CVE-2020-17531, which applies the the (also unsupported) 4.x version line. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects Apache Tapestry version line 3.x, which is no longer supported by the maintainer. Users are recommended to upgrade to a supported version line of Apache Tapestry.
Apache Tapestry up to version 5.8.1 is vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) in the way it handles Content Types. Specially crafted Content Types may cause catastrophic backtracking, taking exponential time to complete. Specifically, this is about the regular expression used on the parameter of the org.apache.tapestry5.http.ContentType class. Apache Tapestry 5.8.2 has a fix for this vulnerability. Notice the vulnerability cannot be triggered by web requests in Tapestry …
Apache Tapestry before 5.3.6 relies on client-side object storage without checking whether a client has modified an object, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (resource consumption) or execute arbitrary code via crafted serialized data.
Information Exposure vulnerability in context asset handling of Apache Tapestry allows an attacker to download files inside WEB-INF if using a specially-constructed URL. This was caused by an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-13953.
A critical unauthenticated remote code execution vulnerability was found in Apache Tapestry.
A Java Serialization vulnerability in Apache Tapestry Apache makes it possible to deserialize the sp parameter even before invoking the page validate method, leading to deserialization without authentication.
In Apache Tapestry, crafting specific URLs, an attacker can download files inside the WEB-INF folder of the WAR being run.
Tapestry processes assets /assets/ctx using classes chain StaticFilesFilter -> AssetDispatcher -> ContextResource, which does not filter the character , so attacker can perform a path traversal attack to read any files on Windows platform.
The code which checks HMAC in form submissions used String.equals() for comparisons, which results in a timing side channel for the comparison of the HMAC signatures. This could lead to remote code execution if an attacker is able to determine the correct signature for their payload. The comparison should be done with a constant time algorithm instead.
Manipulating classpath asset file URLs, an attacker could guess the path to a known file in the classpath and have it downloaded. If the attacker found the file with the value of the tapestry.hmac-passphrase configuration symbol, most probably the webapp's AppModule class, the value of this symbol could be used to craft a Java deserialization attack, thus running malicious injected Java code. The vector would be the t:formdata parameter from …