In Eclipse Dataspace Components from version 0.2.1 to 0.6.2, in the EDC Connector component ( https://github.com/eclipse-edc/Connector ), an attacker might obtain OAuth2 client secrets from the vault.
In Eclipse Dataspace Components from version 0.2.1 to 0.6.2, we have identified a security vulnerability in the EDC Connector component ( https://github.com/eclipse-edc/Connector ) regarding the OAuth2-protected data sink feature. When using a custom, OAuth2-protected data sink, the OAuth2-specific data address properties are resolved by the provider data plane. Problematically, the consumer-provided clientSecretKey, which indicates the OAuth2 client secret to retrieve from a secrets vault, is resolved in the context of the provider's vault, not the consumer. This secret's value is then sent to the tokenUrl, also consumer-controlled, as part of an OAuth2 client credentials grant. The returned access token is then sent as a bearer token to the data sink URL.
This feature is now disabled entirely, because not all code paths necessary for a successful realization were fully implemented.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.8 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it