10 CVEs matched to Code42 by name in NVD, none on CISA's Known Exploited list.
Back to the Code42 profile · Alternatives to Code42 · CVE RSS feed
1 CVE has an estimated 10%-or-higher chance of having already been exploited despite not appearing on CISA's KEV catalog. KEV is a curated record of confirmed cases rather than a complete census, so this is where its coverage is likely thinnest — an estimate from EPSS history, not a finding. Based on a median of 2 EPSS observations per CVE.
Likely-exploited estimates here rest on a median of 2 EPSS observations per CVE — too little history to read as a trend yet. It deepens daily as scores are collected.
Remote Code Execution is possible in Code42 CrashPlan 5.4.x via the org.apache.commons.ssl.rmi.DateRMI Java class, because (upon instantiation) it creates an RM…
In Code42 Enterprise 6.7.5 and earlier, 6.8.4 through 6.8.8, and 7.0.0 a vulnerability has been identified that may allow arbitrary files to be uploaded to Code…
Code42 environments with on-premises server versions 7.0.4 and earlier allow for possible remote code execution. When an administrator creates a local (non-SSO)…
| Year | Critical | High | Medium | Low | Unscored | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2019 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| 2017 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
EPSS is FIRST's estimate of the chance a CVE is exploited in the next 30 days. It measures likelihood, not impact.
| CVE | EPSS | Percentile |
|---|---|---|
| CVE-2017-9830 | 6.5% | 94% |
| CVE-2020-12736 | 2.0% | 81% |
| CVE-2019-15131 | 1.9% | 79% |
| CVE-2021-43269 | 1.3% | 71% |
| CVE-2019-11553 | 1.0% | 61% |
| CVE-2019-11552 | 0.5% | 45% |
| CVE-2019-16861 | 0.4% | 31% |
| CVE-2019-16860 | 0.4% | 30% |
| CVE-2018-20131 | 0.3% | 22% |
| CVE-2019-11551 | 0.3% | 16% |
In Code42 app before 8.8.0, eval injection allows an attacker to change a device’s proxy configuration to use a malicious proxy auto-config (PAC) file, leading to arbitrary code execution. This affect…
Code42 environments with on-premises server versions 7.0.4 and earlier allow for possible remote code execution. When an administrator creates a local (non-SSO) user via a Code42-generated email, the …
In Code42 for Enterprise through 6.8.4, an administrator without web restore permission but with the ability to manage users in an organization can impersonate …
In Code42 app before 8.8.0, eval injection allows an attacker to change a device’s proxy configuration to use a malicious proxy auto-config (PAC) file, leading …
Code42 server through 7.0.2 for Windows has an Untrusted Search Path. In certain situations, a non-administrative attacker on the local server could create or modify a dynamic-link library (DLL). The …
Code42 app through version 7.0.2 for Windows has an Untrusted Search Path. In certain situations, a non-administrative attacker on the local machine could create or modify a dynamic-link library (DLL)…
In Code42 Enterprise 6.7.5 and earlier, 6.8.4 through 6.8.8, and 7.0.0 a vulnerability has been identified that may allow arbitrary files to be uploaded to Code42 servers and executed. This vulnerabil…
In Code42 Enterprise and Crashplan for Small Business through Client version 6.9.1, an attacker can craft a restore request to restore a file through the Code42 app to a location they do not have priv…
In Code42 for Enterprise through 6.8.4, an administrator without web restore permission but with the ability to manage users in an organization can impersonate a user with web restore permission. When…
Code42 Enterprise and Crashplan for Small Business Client version 6.7 before 6.7.5, 6.8 before 6.8.8, and 6.9 before 6.9.4 allows eval injection. A proxy auto-configuration file, crafted by a lesser p…
The Code42 app before 6.8.4, as used in Code42 for Enterprise, on Linux installs with overly permissive permissions on the /usr/local/crashplan/log directory. This allows a user to manipulate symbolic…
Remote Code Execution is possible in Code42 CrashPlan 5.4.x via the org.apache.commons.ssl.rmi.DateRMI Java class, because (upon instantiation) it creates an RMI server that listens on a TCP port and …