EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationNo fix is confirmed yet: check the vendor's advisory for a fixed release; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.7%CVSS: 10.0Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
No fix is confirmed yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for the fix.
The CVE record's CNA (Apache Software Foundation) lists Apache Software Foundation Apache Pulsar Manager versions 0.1.0 up to and including 0.4.0 as affected. No release containing a fix is confirmed on record.
Apache Pulsar Manager is a web console for administering Apache Pulsar clusters. It has its own user accounts and login, and it can be configured with an HTTP authentication credential, such as a token, that it uses to call the Pulsar admin API on behalf of its users. Pulsar Manager has the following security issues:
- The operation for creating the initial administrator (superuser) account is available without authentication, and it remains available after the instance has been initialized. Anyone who can reach Pulsar Manager can create an additional administrator account at any time and log in with it. This issue affects versions 0.3.0 and later.
- Requests to the Pulsar admin API that Pulsar Manager proxies to the configured Pulsar cluster are not subject to Pulsar Manager's authentication. Version 0.2.0 checks the caller's permissions for some of these requests, but not for all of them. An unauthenticated user can therefore use Pulsar Manager to send requests to the Pulsar admin API, which the cluster processes with the credential configured in Pulsar Manager.
- The destination of a proxied request can be chosen by the requester, and Pulsar Manager attaches its configured Pulsar admin credential to the request. An unauthenticated user can make Pulsar Manager send this credential to a host of the user's choosing, and the credential can then be used directly against the Pulsar cluster.
- In versions 0.3.0 and later, Pulsar Manager does not distinguish between privilege levels of its accounts. Every account, including one created through the first issue, effectively has full administrative privileges in Pulsar Manager.
The impact depends on the version and the deployment. In versions 0.3.0 and later, any user who can reach Pulsar Manager over the network can take full control of Pulsar Manager. In all versions, when Pulsar Manager is configured with an HTTP authentication credential for a Pulsar cluster, any user who can reach Pulsar Manager can perform the Pulsar admin operations that this credential permits and can obtain the credential itself. When Pulsar Manager is configured with the token signing key of a Pulsar cluster, an administrator of Pulsar Manager can create tokens for the cluster.
Apache Pulsar Manager is no longer maintained and is completely unsupported. The Apache Pulsar PMC has retired it. There are no supported versions, and no further releases, fixes or security updates will be made for any version. These issues will not be fixed.
Using Pulsar Manager is not recommended. Users should stop using Pulsar Manager, remove existing deployments, and move to one of the alternatives described in the Administration UI documentation (https://pulsar.apache.org/docs/administration-ui). Users who have exposed Pulsar Manager configured with a Pulsar credential or token signing key should also consider replacing that credential or key.
Until a deployment is removed, users should not expose Pulsar Manager to untrusted networks, and should restrict network access to it to trusted administrators.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (10.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 10.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 10.0 CRITICALCVSS-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
- 0.7% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-01). 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: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says.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).
No fix is confirmed yet. Check the vendor's advisory for a fixed release; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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