The Discovery naming-service reply parser in Apache bRPC (versions < 1.18.0) calls RapidJSON object-only accessors (FindMember) on JSON values without first validating that those values are objects. A malformed Discovery response whose data/service members or instances list contain non-object entries (e.g. a bare integer) triggers the RapidJSON object-access precondition on the client, reading memory out of bounds and potentially crashing the bRPC client.
Root Cause:
In src/brpc/policy/discovery_naming_service.cpp, DiscoveryNamingService::GetServers() and DiscoveryNames::ListDiscoveryNodes() access JSON values with member functions on non-object values. RapidJSON only defines these operations for object types; invoking them on a non-object violates the class invariant and results in undefined behavior (out-of-bounds read), commonly crashing the process.
Affected Scenarios:
An operator-configured (or compromised) Discovery backend returns a malformed /discovery/nodes or /discovery/fetchs response whose data/service/instance entries are not JSON objects, crashing any bRPC client that refreshes its server list.
How to Fix:
- Upgrade bRPC to version 1.18.0 or later, which fixes this issue.
- Apply this patch: https://github.com/apache/brpc/pull/3533
The fix validates that the Discovery response data, per-service data, and instance entries are JSON objects (and skips non-object node/instance entries and rejects non-object data/service values) before calling member accessors.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.3 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. 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