Description
getNimbusConf returned the complete daemon configuration without redaction after only a user-level
authorization check. Where the cluster is configured with them, that response includes
storm.zookeeper.auth.payload and the keystore and truststore passwords for the Thrift, Netty and
ZooKeeper TLS configuration. The project masks passwords elsewhere before display, so the omission here is
inconsistent rather than intended.
The UI endpoint /api/v1/cluster/configuration compounded this. It carried no @AuthNimbusOp annotation,
and the authorization filter treated a missing annotation as "no gate required" and returned immediately, so
the endpoint applied no per-user check at all and proxied the request under the UI daemon's own principal.
Any user able to pass ui.filter therefore received the full configuration, including principals that
Nimbus itself would have refused.
Mitigation
Upgrade to 3.1.0, where credential-bearing values are masked before the configuration is served and where
every UI API endpoint must declare its authorization explicitly.
Users who cannot upgrade immediately should place the UI behind an authenticating reverse proxy that
restricts /api/v1/cluster/configuration, and should rotate the ZooKeeper authentication payload and any
TLS keystore or truststore passwords that were reachable through it.
Credit
The ASF -- found using Claude agents to study the security of open-source projects, validated and reported by Apache Storm.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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