SQL injection in Hive Metastore direct SQL partition-name resolution in Apache Hive before 4.2.1 on all platforms allows authenticated users with access to Hive Metastore APIs to read, modify, or affect unintended partition metadata (including statistics updates, truncation targets, and file-metadata cache operations) via crafted partition names in metastore RPC requests when direct SQL is enabled (the default). Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.2.1, which fixes this issue.
Details about the issue:
Several Hive Metastore RPCs resolve partitions by full partition name (PART_NAME) through direct-SQL helpers. In those paths, client-supplied partition names are embedded into SQL using string concatenation (DirectSqlUpdatePart.quoteString() → '...') instead of bind parameters. A partition name containing a single quote (and crafted SQL) can alter the generated WHERE clause so that lookups intended for one partition match additional rows. That can affect reads, stats updates, truncate targets, metadata-cache targets, and related operations when metastore.try.direct.sql is enabled (default: true). An authenticated or network-trusted caller with the ability to invoke Hive Metastore partition-name APIs against a target table (directly or via Hive/other clients), when direct SQL is enabled can perform this attack. Also, the impact is mainly within table & partition targeting (read/update/truncate/drop/cache the wrong partitions in a table they can reference), not arbitrary cross-database access via this bug alone.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.9% 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; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (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)14 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 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