EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.3%CVSS: 5.9Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
No fix is confirmed yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for the fix.
The CVE record's CNA (Eclipse Foundation) lists Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Vert.x versions 4.0.0 up to and including 4.5.34, 5.0.0 up to and including 5.0.12 and 5.1.0 up to and including 5.1.9 as affected. No release containing a fix is confirmed on record.
In Eclipse Vert.x versions [4.0.0, 4.5.34] or [5.0.0,5.0.12] or [5.1.0,5.1.9] or [5.2.0, 5.2.0], a scope bypass vulnerability exists in Eclipse Vert.x Web's ChainAuthHandler when used with scope-requiring authentication handlers such as JWTAuthHandler or OAuth2AuthHandler. When a user is already authenticated on the routing context by a preceding handler in the request pipeline, ChainAuthHandler skips all scope validation configured via withScope() or withScopes(). This affects both any() and all() chain modes.
The root cause is that postAuthentication() relies on internal state that is only set during the authenticate() phase, which is skipped entirely for pre-authenticated users. In any() mode, the absence of this state causes the method to fall through without delegating scope checks to any handler. In all() mode, scope checks are unconditionally skipped.
This allows a user with a valid token but insufficient scopes to access resources protected by scope requirements, provided they were authenticated by an earlier handler in the pipeline. The most common trigger is overlapping authentication handlers on nested routes, where a parent route authenticates broadly and a child route uses a chain to enforce specific scopes.
The impacted component Maven coordinate is io.vertx:vertx-web
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.9): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.9 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.9 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% 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 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: 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).
No fix is confirmed yet. Restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation within your standard update timelines, and watch the vendor's advisory for the fix.
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.
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