A critical vulnerability in Admin GUI in Payara Server Full 4.x, 5.x, 6.x, 7.x, 7.2026.x, 6.2025.x, 6.2024.x on All platforms that allows the attacker to leak the admin gfresttoken to an attacker-controlled host that can result in a full unauthenticated takeover of Payara admin domain.
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the DownloadServlet of the Admin GUI in Payara Server allows a remote attacker to exfiltrate the administrator's REST session token (gfresttoken) to an attacker-controlled host via a crafted request URL. Combined with the absence of CSRF protection on DownloadServlet, an unauthenticated attacker can trick a logged-in administrator into triggering the token leak, then replay the stolen token to gain full administrative access to the Payara domain, leading to arbitrary code execution via WAR deployment. The vulnerability exists in the DownloadServlet and associated ContentSource implementations (LogViewerContentSource, LogFilesContentSource, LBConfigContentSource, ClientStubsContentSource) within the admingui:console-common module.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.3 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
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). 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).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
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