Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in Avro SerDe schema resolution in Apache Hive before 4.2.1 allows an authenticated remote attacker with CREATE TABLE privilege to cause the Hive server to fetch an attacker-controlled URL when resolving the avro.schema.url table property on an Avro table that is subsequently queried. This can expose cloud instance metadata, internal network services, or local server files to the Hive process identity. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.2.1, which fixes this issue.
Attacker access requirements:
* Network access to HiveServer2 / Metastore: required (remote attacker model).
* Valid Hive authentication: required.
* CREATE TABLE (or equivalent) privilege: required, so the attacker can set avro.schema.url in table properties.
* SELECT privilege on the malicious table: not required for the creator, who can typically query their own table; any other user granted SELECT can also trigger the fetch.
* Write access to the table LOCATION: not required; the attack uses the schema URL, not the data path.
* Admin / superuser privileges: not required; an ordinary authenticated user with DDL rights is sufficient.
* External tables enabled: typically required in practice, and enabled by default in most deployments.
Detection guidance:
* Inspect metastore / Hive table metadata for Avro tables whose avro.schema.url uses unexpected schemes such as http, https, file, or ftp, or points at link-local / cloud metadata addresses (for example 169.254.169.254) or other internal hosts.
* Review HiveServer2 and Metastore logs around CREATE/ALTER TABLE and queries against Avro tables for schema-resolution failures or outbound fetches of avro.schema.url.
* Correlate CREATE TABLE / ALTER TABLE activity that sets avro.schema.url with subsequent SELECT activity on the same table, especially when the URL target is unusual for schema distribution.
* On cloud deployments, check instance / VPC flow logs and metadata service access logs for unexpected requests from Hive host identities shortly after Avro DDL or query activity.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.1 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 1.0% 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: 3 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).
The CVE record names the fixed release. 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 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.
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