VulnerabilityPublished 23 Sep 2022Updated 27 May 2025

CVE-2022-33682: Apache Pulsar · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects Apache PulsarSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium · fixed in 2.9.3 : update Apache Pulsar when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 53% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.9.3, 2.8.4, 2.7.5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 23 Sep 2022
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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.

What to do

Upgrade org.apache.pulsar/pulsar to 2.9.3, 2.8.4 or 2.7.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenorg.apache.pulsar/pulsar`pkg:maven/org.apache.pulsar/pulsar`Other threats	Affected 2.7.0 <2.7.5 – 2.10.0 <=2.6 4 affected builds	Fixed in 2.7.5 2.8.4 2.9.3

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately assess their Apache Pulsar deployments to identify affected versions (2.6 and earlier, 2.7.0-2.7.4, 2.8.0-2.8.3, 2.9.0-2.9.2, and 2.10.0). They should upgrade to the latest patched versions where TLS hostname verification is properly enforced. If immediate upgrading is not feasible, organizations should implement network-level mitigations such as strict network segmentation to limit the possibility of MITM attacks within intra-cluster and geo-replication communication paths. Deploying mutual TLS authentication with strict hostname verification policies at the network or application layer can help mitigate risks. Additionally, organizations should monitor network traffic for anomalies indicative of MITM activity and audit logs for suspicious access patterns. Employing network encryption monitoring tools and intrusion detection systems that can detect certificate anomalies or unexpected TLS handshakes is recommended. Finally, organizations should review and update their incident response plans to include scenarios involving intra-cluster communication interception.

Description

TLS hostname verification cannot be enabled in the Pulsar Broker's Java Client, the Pulsar Broker's Java Admin Client, the Pulsar WebSocket Proxy's Java Client, and the Pulsar Proxy's Admin Client leaving intra-cluster connections and geo-replication connections vulnerable to man in the middle attacks, which could leak credentials, configuration data, message data, and any other data sent by these clients. The vulnerability is for both the pulsar+ssl protocol and HTTPS. An attacker can only take advantage of this vulnerability by taking control of a machine 'between' the client and the server. The attacker must then actively manipulate traffic to perform the attack by providing the client with a cryptographically valid certificate for an unrelated host. This issue affects Apache Pulsar Broker, Proxy, and WebSocket Proxy versions 2.7.0 to 2.7.4; 2.8.0 to 2.8.3; 2.9.0 to 2.9.2; 2.10.0; 2.6.4 and earlier.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing Apache Pulsar for messaging and streaming, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive data within their messaging infrastructure. Since intra-cluster and geo-replication communications often carry critical operational data, credentials, and messages, a successful MITM attack could compromise confidentiality, potentially exposing business secrets, personal data, or operational commands. This risk is particularly acute for organizations with distributed Pulsar clusters spanning multiple data centers or countries, where network traffic traverses less trusted or public networks. The leakage of credentials could also facilitate further lateral movement or privilege escalation within the affected environment. While the vulnerability does not directly impact data integrity or availability, the confidentiality breach alone can have severe regulatory and reputational consequences, especially under GDPR and other European data protection laws. The requirement for an attacker to be positioned between client and server somewhat limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in cloud or hybrid environments where network segmentation may be less strict.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

lists.apache.org/thread/l0ynfl161qghwfcgbbl8ld9hzbl9t3yx (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Jul 2025, 04:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats