Temporal Server does not bind a workflow-history pagination token to the namespace and workflow named in the request that presents it. GetWorkflowExecutionHistory and GetWorkflowExecutionHistoryReverse authorize the caller against the namespace in the request, then select history from the branch recorded inside the caller-supplied next_page_token. The normal history continuation carries a run identifier, event bounds, a persistence cursor, and a branch token, but no namespace or workflow identity, and it is serialized as unauthenticated protobuf bytes. An authenticated caller holding read permission on one namespace, together with a genuine non-final continuation issued earlier for a workflow in a second namespace, can submit that continuation with a request naming the first namespace and receive the second namespace's workflow history, provided the supplied workflow identifier selects the same History shard as the continuation's branch. No workflow with the supplied identifier needs to exist. Because the token is unauthenticated, a holder can also advance its event range and clear its persistence cursor, which returns history events created after that caller's current credential no longer granted access to the continuation's namespace. Determining exposure is a version question rather than a configuration question: every release listed as affected omits the binding check on the forward history path, and on the reverse history path in releases from 1.16.0, which introduced GetWorkflowExecutionHistoryReverse; no setting in an affected release restores it, and affected releases emit no metric or log for the condition, so their telemetry provides no detection. Fixed releases add the check and, when a page token's branch token is not the requested execution's current branch token, record the counter pagination_token_branch_mismatch tagged with namespace and reason and write a History-service warning log reading "Pagination branch token is not the execution's current branch token" with the fields wf-namespace, wf-id, wf-run-id, reason, wf-branch-token, and wf-request-branch-token. Search History warning logs for that message, or for reason=foreign_branch, which denotes a branch token the requested execution never recorded and is not expected in normal operation; reason=non_current_branch denotes a retained but superseded branch of the same execution and can occur legitimately after conflict resolution or failover. A foreign_branch record does not by itself prove the read was refused, because the counter and log are emitted before the enforcement decision and therefore appear both when the check rejects the request and when history.enablePaginationTokenBranchValidationShadowMode is enabled and the read is served; confirm refusal from the gRPC response, which is InvalidArgument carrying a CurrentBranchChangedFailure detail. The metric and log are tagged with the requesting namespace, not the namespace whose history the token selects, so a foreign_branch alert does not name the exposed namespace. The issue does not provide unauthenticated access, construction of a usable continuation from public workflow identifiers, enumeration of workflows for which the caller holds no continuation, or any modification of workflow state.
CVE-2026-87857
“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.
This medium-severity CVE scores 5.3 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.4% (34th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.
Also known asEUVD-2026-120396 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-fqqw-cv9m-h3p6 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD
- Lower severity and no public exploit yet
A fix is available — apply it.
- CVSS
- 5.3
- EG Score
- 5.3MEDIUMmedium confidence
- EG Risk
- 24EG Risk 24/100
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)Severity53% × 45%Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 5.3 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.Exploitation0.4% × 40%FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.Automatability0% × 15%CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at every mission impact level.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.Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines. - EPSS PROB
- 0.4%
- EPSS %ILE
- 34th
- 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 (5.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.3 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). 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
Published
November 9, 2026
Last Modified
November 12, 2026
Advisory Details (10)
Auto-updated Nov 9, 2026v1.30.7
Patch available: temporalio/temporal v1.30.7
https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/releases/tag/v1.30.7commit 690b53103e11 (temporalio/temporal)
Fix landed in temporalio/temporal commit 690b53103e11 — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/commit/690b53103e11982de5f9187f722a0e0d3780028dCherry-pick PRs labeled for v1.30.7 release
Fix merged in temporalio/temporal PR #12040 on 2026-09-14 — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/pull/12040commit c82a2d228e72 (temporalio/temporal)
Fix landed in temporalio/temporal commit c82a2d228e72 — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/commit/c82a2d228e7287b1d283a55477f40a1a48481010Cherry-pick PRs labeled for v1.31.3 release
Fix merged in temporalio/temporal PR #12039 on 2026-09-14 — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/pull/12039commit 4b0272873545 (temporalio/temporal)
Fix landed in temporalio/temporal commit 4b0272873545 — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/commit/4b02728735450dd60eaff9a5d0dc8e11fc8a4b13Backport release/1.32.0 labeled fixes
Fix merged in temporalio/temporal PR #11919 on 2026-09-03 — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/pull/11919commit ceb1cc1071b1 (temporalio/temporal)
Fix landed in temporalio/temporal commit ceb1cc1071b1 — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/commit/ceb1cc1071b1fd37f8a2cd8ef5ed3e4333245cc2Validate history pagination branch token against mutable state
Fix merged in temporalio/temporal PR #11723 on 2026-08-21 — awaiting tagged release
https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/pull/11723temporal/service/frontend/workflowHandler.go at v1.0.0 · temporalio/temporal · GitHub
https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/blob/v1.0.0/service/frontend/workflowHandler.go#L602-L740Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-87857(1)
These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.
Weakness Classification(2)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 10× in last 7d / 10× 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 its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS → 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). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.
- 2026-11-12 21:50 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-fqqw-cv9m-h3p6 · GitHub severity MODERATE
- 2026-11-12 17:30 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
- 2026-11-12 17:30 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-fqqw-cv9m-h3p6 · GitHub severity MODERATE
- 2026-11-12 16:57 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
- 2026-11-12 16:57 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-fqqw-cv9m-h3p6 · GitHub severity MODERATE
- 2026-11-12 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
- 2026-11-11 16:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
- 2026-11-11 08:06 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
- 2026-11-11 08:05 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-fqqw-cv9m-h3p6 · GitHub severity MODERATE
- 2026-11-10 16:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
- 2026-11-09 21:46 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-fqqw-cv9m-h3p6 · GitHub severity MODERATE
- 2026-11-09 21:00 UTCENISA EUVD ID recordedEUVD-2026-120396 · Source: ENISA EUVD
- 2026-11-09 20:28 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
- 2026-11-09 19:50 UTCEchelonGraph re-scoredFirst assessed: 5.3 MEDIUM
- 2026-11-09 19:49 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked
Related CVEs(same CWE)
Frequently asked(5)
What is CVE-2026-87857?
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-87857 published?
Is CVE-2026-87857 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-87857?
How do I remediate CVE-2026-87857?
Dependency Blast Radius
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-87857
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-87857?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.