The "create core" API of Apache Solr 8.6 through 9.10.0 lacks sufficient input validation on some API parameters, which can cause Solr to check the existence of and attempt to read file-system paths that should be disallowed by Solr's "allowPaths" security setting https://https://solr.apache.org/guide/solr/latest/configuration-guide/configuring-solr-xml.html#the-solr-element . These read-only accesses can allow users to create cores using unexpected configsets if any are accessible via the filesystem. On Windows systems configured to allow UNC paths this can additionally cause disclosure of NTLM "user" hashes.
Solr deployments are subject to this vulnerability if they meet the following criteria:
* Solr is running in its "standalone" mode.
* Solr's "allowPath" setting is being used to restrict file access to certain directories.
* Solr's "create core" API is exposed and accessible to untrusted users. This can happen if Solr's RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin https://solr.apache.org/guide/solr/latest/deployment-guide/rule-based-authorization-plugin.html is disabled, or if it is enabled but the "core-admin-edit" predefined permission (or an equivalent custom permission) is given to low-trust (i.e. non-admin) user roles.
Users can mitigate this by enabling Solr's RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin (if disabled) and configuring a permission-list that prevents untrusted users from creating new Solr cores. Users should also upgrade to Apache Solr 9.10.1 or greater, which contain fixes for this issue.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.7% 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