A writer role user in an attacker-controlled namespace could signal, delete, and reset workflows or activities in a victim namespace on the same cluster. Exploitation requires the attacker to know or guess specific victim workflow ID(s) and, for signal operations, signal names. This was due to a bug introduced in Temporal Server v1.29.0 which inadvertently allowed an attacker to control the namespace name value instead of using the server's own trusted name value within the batch activity code. The batch activity validated the namespace ID but did not cross-check the namespace name against the worker's bound namespace, allowing the per-namespace worker's privileged credentials to operate on an arbitrary namespace. Exploitation requires a server configuration where internal components have cross-namespace authorization, such as deployment of the internal-frontend service or equivalent TLS-based authorization for internal identities.
This vulnerability also impacted Temporal Cloud when the attacker and victim namespaces were on the same cell, with the same preconditions as self-hosted clusters.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (2.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 2.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 2.3 LOWCVSS-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 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: 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.
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