CVE-2026-105942

HIGHPre-NVD 7.77.7
EchelonGraph scoreLOW confidence

This high-severity CVE scores 7.7 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit-prediction score not yet available (the EPSS model rescores nightly; freshly-published CVEs typically appear within 48 hours). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: a secondary CVSS source
7.7EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: —CVSS: 7.7Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

The CVE record names the fixed release — apply it.

When a configured proxy role sends a request to the broker on behalf of another user (the original principal), the broker is designed to authorize both the proxy role and the original principal and to allow the request only if both are authorized, so that the original principal cannot exceed its own permissions. Two flaws weakened this check.

First, the original principal was authorized with the proxy's authentication data instead of its own. On the admin REST API of the broker and the functions worker, this applied to every proxied request. On the Pulsar binary protocol, it applied when the proxy did not forward the client's credentials to the broker, which was the default of the Pulsar proxy in the affected versions. Authorization providers that resolve permissions from the role name only, such as the default authorization provider, are not affected by this flaw. The multi-role token authorization provider (MultiRolesTokenAuthorizationProvider), added in Apache Pulsar 2.8.1, resolves roles from the role claim of the token in the authentication data it is given. When a proxy authenticates to the broker with its own token, the original principal was therefore authorized with all roles in the proxy's token. If any of those roles is a superuser or tenant admin role, any user whose requests are forwarded by that proxy can perform operations that need those permissions without holding them. Custom authorization providers that use the authentication data could be affected in a similar way.

Second, independently of the authorization provider, the tenant admin check of a proxied admin REST API request succeeded without checking the original principal when the proxy role was itself an admin role of the tenant. In deployments where a proxy role is a tenant admin, including with the default authorization provider, any user whose requests are forwarded by that proxy could perform tenant administration operations on that tenant. This behavior is present from 2.8.4 in the 2.8.x releases, from 2.9.3 in the 2.9.x releases, and from 2.10.1 onwards.

Deployments that use neither the multi-role token authorization provider nor a custom provider that uses the authentication data are not affected by the first flaw, and with the multi-role token authorization provider, neither are deployments whose proxies do not authenticate to the broker with a token. Deployments in which no proxy role is listed as an admin role of a tenant are not affected by the second flaw. A proxy role that is a superuser but is not listed as a tenant admin does not trigger it, because the tenant admin check of the built-in authorization providers only considers the tenant's admin roles; this can differ for custom authorization providers that treat superusers as tenant admins.

In fixed versions, both the proxy role and the original principal are authorized for each proxied request, and the original principal is authorized only with its own authentication data. With the multi-role token authorization provider, the roles of a forwarded token are used for the original principal only when that token authenticates as the original principal; otherwise only the original principal's role name is used. For tenant admin checks, the proxy role and the original principal must each be a superuser or a tenant admin of the tenant.

This issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 2.8.1 before 4.0.14 and from 4.1.0 before 4.2.5.

  • 4.0.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.0.14.
  • 4.1.x and 4.2.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.2.5.

Users operating versions prior to those listed above should upgrade to the aforementioned patched versions or newer versions.

The currently supported Apache Pulsar release lines are 4.0.x and 5.0.x. The supported versions schedule is available at https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/.

CVSS v3
7.7
EG Score
7.7HIGHlow confidence
EG Risk
35
EG Risk 35/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity77% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.7 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0% × 40%
No KEV listing, EG-KEV tier or EPSS when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact both High). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
—
EPSS %ILE
—
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.7 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
EG Likelihood
Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
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).

The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact both High). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact both High). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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

Published

October 21, 2026

Last Modified

October 21, 2026

Advisory Details (1)

Auto-updated Oct 21, 2026
Fix named in the CVE record.

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-105942(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 3× in last 7d / 3× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-10-21 19:27 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-21 18:31 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 7.7 HIGH
  3. 2026-10-21 18:30 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-105942?
CVE-2026-105942 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 21, 2026. When a configured proxy role sends a request to the broker on behalf of another user (the original principal), the broker is designed to authorize both the proxy role and the original principal and to allow the request only if both are authorized, so that the original principal cannot exceed its…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-105942 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-105942 was published on October 21, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 21, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-105942?
CVE-2026-105942 has a CVSS base score of 7.7 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending). The EG score is currently aggregating — additional source signals are being incorporated as they become available..
How do I remediate CVE-2026-105942?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-105942 names the fix: "- 4.0.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.0.14." The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-105942 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-105942

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-105942?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.