A possible arbitrary file read and SSRF vulnerability has been identified in Apache Kafka Client. Apache Kafka Clients accept configuration data for setting the SASL/OAUTHBEARER connection with the brokers, including "sasl.oauthbearer.token.endpoint.url" and "sasl.oauthbearer.jwks.endpoint.url". Apache Kafka allows clients to read an arbitrary file and return the content in the error log, or sending requests to an unintended location. In applications where Apache Kafka Clients configurations can be specified by an untrusted party, attackers may use the "sasl.oauthbearer.token.endpoint.url" and "sasl.oauthbearer.jwks.endpoint.url" configuratin to read arbitrary contents of the disk and environment variables or make requests to an unintended location. In particular, this flaw may be used in Apache Kafka Connect to escalate from REST API access to filesystem/environment/URL access, which may be undesirable in certain environments, including SaaS products.
Since Apache Kafka 3.9.1/4.0.0, we have added a system property ("-Dorg.apache.kafka.sasl.oauthbearer.allowed.urls") to set the allowed urls in SASL JAAS configuration. In 3.9.1, it accepts all urls by default for backward compatibility. However in 4.0.0 and newer, the default value is empty list and users have to set the allowed urls explicitly.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.6): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.6 is EPSS's lift toward 9.0 from its impact severity (EG Severity, CVSS 7.5 HIGH): a likelihood of exploitation, not impact.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 69% 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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