CVE-2026-105927

LOWPre-NVD 2.32.3
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

This low-severity CVE scores 2.3 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.4% (38th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: EPSS, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 3 sources updated this week

Also known asEUVD-2026-107426 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-5q6x-rgx4-rwcr (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

2.3EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.4%CVSS: 2.3Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

The CVE record names the fixed release — apply it.

The Apache Pulsar WebSocket service allows a WebSocket consumer to configure a dead letter policy through query parameters of the consumer endpoint, including the deadLetterTopic parameter that names the topic to which messages are written after the maximum number of redeliveries is exceeded. When authorization is enabled, the WebSocket service checks only that the connecting user holds the CONSUME permission on the subscribed topic. It does not check whether the user holds the PRODUCE permission on the topic named in deadLetterTopic. The dead letter messages are then written by the WebSocket service using its own broker client identity rather than the identity of the connecting user.

As a result, an authenticated user who holds the CONSUME permission on at least one topic can cause messages to be written to a topic of their choosing in any existing namespace, including namespaces belonging to other tenants, provided the role used by the WebSocket service to connect to the brokers is authorized to produce to that topic and the topic accepts a producer that registers no schema. The dead letter producer created by the WebSocket service registers no schema, so it is rejected when the target topic has a schema and schema validation is enforced for that topic or its namespace; this setting is not enabled by default. The same user is refused when attempting to produce to that topic directly. Where automatic topic creation is enabled, which is the default, the named topic is created if it does not already exist. The issue can only be triggered when the WebSocket service is enabled, either in the broker (webSocketServiceEnabled, which is disabled by default) or as a standalone WebSocket proxy.

The impact is unauthorized injection of messages into topics the user is not permitted to produce to. The user can determine the content of the injected messages when they also control the messages on the subscribed topic. The issue does not allow reading, modifying or deleting existing messages in the target topic. Injected messages carry the dead letter message properties and a dead letter producer name, so they can be distinguished from messages produced normally; however, the values of these properties are not authenticated and should not be relied upon to establish the origin of a message. Whether an injected message has further consequences depends on how the applications consuming the target topic process it. Repeated injection also consumes storage and backlog capacity in the target namespace.

This issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 2.3.0 before 4.0.14 and from 4.1.0 before 4.2.5.

  • 4.0.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.0.14.
  • 4.1.x and 4.2.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.2.5.

Users operating versions prior to those listed above should upgrade to the aforementioned patched versions or newer versions.

The currently supported Apache Pulsar release lines are 4.0.x and 5.0.x. The supported versions schedule is available at https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/.

Users who cannot upgrade immediately and do not require the WebSocket service should disable it. Where the WebSocket service is required, restricting network access to it and limiting the permissions granted to the role the WebSocket service uses to connect to the brokers to the namespaces WebSocket clients are intended to access reduces the exposure.

CVSS v3
2.3
EG Score
2.3LOWmedium confidence
EG Risk
11
EG Risk 11/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity23% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 2.3 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.4% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at every mission impact level.
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.
Action: The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.4%
EPSS %ILE
38th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (2.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 2.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
2.3 LOWCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
EG Likelihood
0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-30). 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.

The CVE record names the fixed release. 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

Published

October 21, 2026

Last Modified

October 30, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-105927(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 13× in last 7d / 23× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-01 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 38th percentile
  2. 2026-10-31 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 38th percentile
  3. 2026-10-30 19:34 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-30 19:34 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-5q6x-rgx4-rwcr · GitHub severity LOW
  5. 2026-10-30 18:26 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-30 18:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-5q6x-rgx4-rwcr · GitHub severity LOW
  7. 2026-10-30 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 38th percentile
  8. 2026-10-29 18:19 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-29 18:19 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-5q6x-rgx4-rwcr · GitHub severity LOW
  10. 2026-10-29 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 37th percentile
  11. 2026-10-28 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 37th percentile
  12. 2026-10-27 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 37th percentile
  13. 2026-10-26 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 37th percentile
  14. 2026-10-25 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 37th percentile
  15. 2026-10-25 14:55 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-10-24 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 37th percentile
  17. 2026-10-23 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  18. 2026-10-22 17:12 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-10-22 17:12 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-5q6x-rgx4-rwcr · GitHub severity LOW
  20. 2026-10-22 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  21. 2026-10-21 18:26 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-10-21 18:06 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 2.3 LOW
  23. 2026-10-21 18:05 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-105927?
CVE-2026-105927 is a low-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 21, 2026. The Apache Pulsar WebSocket service allows a WebSocket consumer to configure a dead letter policy through query parameters of the consumer endpoint, including the deadLetterTopic parameter that names the topic to which messages are written after the maximum number of redeliveries is exceeded. When…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-105927 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-105927 was published on October 21, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 30, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-105927 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-105927 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.4% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (38th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-105927?
CVE-2026-105927 has a CVSS base score of 2.3 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-105927?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-105927 names the fix: "- 4.0.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.0.14." The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-105927 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-105927

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-105927?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.