Apache NiFi 1.10.0 through 2.0.0 are missing fine-grained authorization checking for Parameter Contexts, referenced Controller Services, and referenced Parameter Providers, when creating new Process Groups.
Creating a new Process Group can include binding to a Parameter Context, but in cases where the Process Group did not reference any Parameter values, the framework did not check user authorization for the bound Parameter Context. Missing authorization for a bound Parameter Context enabled clients to download non-sensitive Parameter values after creating the Process Group.
Creating a new Process Group can also include referencing existing Controller Services or Parameter Providers. The framework did not check user authorization for referenced Controller Services or Parameter Providers, enabling clients to create Process Groups and use these components that were otherwise unauthorized.
This vulnerability is limited in scope to authenticated users authorized to create Process Groups. The scope is further limited to deployments with component-based authorization policies. Upgrading to Apache NiFi 2.1.0 is the recommended mitigation, which includes authorization checking for Parameter and Controller Service references on Process Group creation.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.4): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.4 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.4 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 3.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. 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