VulnerabilityPublished 3 Mar 2026Updated 24 Aug 2026

CVE-2025-59060: Apache Ranger · Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch

Affects Apache RangerSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 2.8.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 43% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.8.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 3 Mar 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 30 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.

What to do

Upgrade org.apache.ranger/ranger to 2.8.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Software FoundationApache Ranger	Affected <=2.7.0	Fixed in–
Mavenorg.apache.ranger/ranger`pkg:maven/org.apache.ranger/ranger`Other threats	Affected <=2.7.0 <2.8.0	Fixed in 2.8.0

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

AI-suggested

Organizations should upgrade Apache Ranger to version 2.8.0 or later immediately to remediate the hostname verification bypass vulnerability. Until upgrade is possible, administrators should consider implementing network-level protections such as strict TLS inspection and certificate pinning where feasible to detect and block MITM attempts. Deploying network segmentation and zero-trust principles can limit exposure of Ranger clients to untrusted networks. Monitoring network traffic for anomalous TLS certificates and unusual client-server interactions can provide early detection of exploitation attempts. Additionally, reviewing and tightening Ranger security policies and audit logs can help identify suspicious activities. It is also advisable to educate security teams about this vulnerability and ensure that all components interacting with Ranger clients enforce proper certificate validation. Finally, organizations should subscribe to Apache Ranger security advisories to stay informed about any further updates or related vulnerabilities.

Description

Hostname verification bypass issue in Apache Ranger NiFiRegistryClient is reported in Apache Ranger versions <= 2.7.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.8.0, which fixes this issue.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the compromise of confidentiality and integrity of data transmitted between Apache Ranger clients and servers. By bypassing hostname verification, attackers can perform MITM attacks to intercept sensitive security policies, credentials, or audit data, potentially leading to unauthorized access or manipulation of security configurations. This can undermine the trustworthiness of the entire big data security infrastructure managed by Ranger. Organizations relying on Apache Ranger for enforcing access controls in Hadoop, Hive, HBase, and other big data components may face increased risk of data breaches or insider threat exploitation. The vulnerability could also facilitate lateral movement within networks if attackers gain access to Ranger-managed environments. Given the critical role of Ranger in enterprise and government data security, the impact extends to regulatory compliance failures and reputational damage. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not diminish the urgency of remediation due to the ease of exploitation and potential for targeted attacks.

CWE-297Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product communicates with a host that provides a certificate, but the product does not properly ensure that the certificate is actually associated with that host.
Architecture and Design
In order to ensure data integrity, the certificate must be valid, and it must pertain to the site that is being accessed.Fully check the hostname of the certificate and provide the user with adequate information about the nature of the problem and how to proceed.
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.
Implementation
Be careful of other weaknesses in the code that checks the hostname, since it is still possible to incorrectly check the hostname. For example, attackers could create a certificate with a name that begins with a trusted name followed by a NUL byte, which could cause some string-based comparisons to only examine the…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.14.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (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 3 Mar 2026, 11:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-297

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats