CVE-2026-84501VulnerabilityPublished 16 Sep 2026Updated 17 Oct 2026

An unauthenticated attacker can inject arbitrary fake log lines into Apache ZooKeeper's operational log by sending a

Affects zookeeperSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-84501· Medium 5.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 3.8.7 : update zookeeper when convenient.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 20:20 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 54% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.8.7

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 31 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-mm24-r27q-hxg5

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenorg.apache.zookeeper/zookeeper`pkg:maven/org.apache.zookeeper/zookeeper`Other threats	Affected >=3.8.0 <=3.8.6 >=3.9.0 <=3.9.5	Fixed in–
Ubuntu Pro 14.04 LTSzookeeper`pkg:deb/ubuntu/zookeeper?arch=source&distro=esm-infra-legacy/trusty`Other threats	Affected =3.4.5+dfsg-1 =3.4.5+dfsg-1ubuntu0.1~esm1 =3.4.5+dfsg-1ubuntu0.1~esm3	Fixed in–
Ubuntu Pro 16.04 LTSzookeeper`pkg:deb/ubuntu/zookeeper?arch=source&distro=esm-apps/xenial`Other threats	Affected 3.4.6-8 – 3.4.8-1ubuntu0.1~esm2 5 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu Pro 18.04 LTSzookeeper`pkg:deb/ubuntu/zookeeper?arch=source&distro=esm-apps/bionic`Other threats	Affected 3.4.10-2 – 3.4.13-3ubuntu0.1~esm1 4 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 20.04 LTSzookeeper`pkg:deb/ubuntu/zookeeper?arch=source&distro=focal`Other threats	Affected 3.4.13-1 – 3.4.13-5ubuntu0.1 7 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 22.04 LTSzookeeper`pkg:deb/ubuntu/zookeeper?arch=source&distro=jammy`Other threats	Affected 3.4.13-5ubuntu4 – 3.4.13-6ubuntu4.1 5 affected builds	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Upgrade Apache ZooKeeper to version 3.8.7 or 3.9.6 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. No other mitigation is indicated by the vendor advisory. Patch status is confirmed by the version upgrade information.

Description

Apache ZooKeeper versions 3.8.0 through 3.8.6 and 3.9.0 through 3.9.5 contain a vulnerability where an unauthenticated attacker can inject arbitrary fake log lines into the operational log by sending a crafted add_auth("ensemble", ...) request with newline characters. This causes the server to log unsanitized input, allowing forged log entries that appear indistinguishable from legitimate logs. Upgrading to versions 3.8.7 or 3.9.6 resolves the issue.

CWE-117Improper Output Neutralization for Logs (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A09:2025: Security Logging & Alerting Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Implementation · Output Encoding
Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Content Security Policy (opens in a new tab)
Application Logging Vocabulary (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V7.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.6 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Audit Log Manipulation (opens in a new tab)
Web Server Logs Tampering (opens in a new tab)
Log Injection-Tampering-Forging (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 18 Oct 2026, 02:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-117

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats