VulnerabilityPublished 4 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-100235: Apache ZooKeeper · Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition

Affects Apache ZooKeeperSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.0 Medium · fixed in 3.8.8 : update Apache ZooKeeper when convenient.

Data as of 4 Nov 2026, 11:43 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.0Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (apache)	CVSS 4.0	6.0

Patch: Available – fixed in 3.8.8

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 Nov 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 4 Nov 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache ZooKeeperorg.apache.zookeeper:zookeeper	Affected >=3.9.0 <=3.9.6 >=3.8.0 <=3.8.7	Fixed in–
Mavenorg.apache.zookeeper/zookeeper`pkg:maven/org.apache.zookeeper/zookeeper`Other threats	Affected >=3.9.0 <=3.9.6 >=3.8.0 <=3.8.7	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Users should upgrade affected Apache ZooKeeper versions to 3.8.8 or 3.9.7, where this TOCTOU race condition has been fixed. No other mitigations are indicated by the vendor advisory.

Description

Incorrect authorization due to a time-of-check to time-of-use (TOCTOU) race condition in the setACL request handling of Apache ZooKeeper. When a node's ACL is changed via setACL, the pending change is not published to the server's outstanding change record for that node. Any request that is prepared (and authorized) after the setACL is submitted but before it commits is therefore checked against the previous, pre-revocation ACL, yet is applied to the data tree after the ACL change has taken effect. A client that currently holds a permission can use this window to perform operations requiring that permission through and after its revocation — for example, committing writes or deletes after losing write access, or re-granting itself full permissions, which persistently defeats the revocation. In deployments transitioning from the default OPEN_ACL_UNSAFE ACL to a restrictive ACL, any unauthenticated client can exploit this during the transition. This issue affects Apache ZooKeeper up to and including 3.9.6. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 3.8.8 or 3.9.7, which fixes the issue.

Impact

An attacker with previously granted permissions can exploit the timing window to continue performing privileged operations after those permissions have been revoked. This can lead to unauthorized data modifications, deletions, or privilege escalations that persistently defeat ACL revocation mechanisms. The vulnerability undermines the integrity of access control in affected Apache ZooKeeper deployments.

Summary

The vulnerability arises because when a node's ACL is changed via setACL, the pending ACL change is not immediately reflected in the server's outstanding change record. Consequently, requests authorized after the ACL change submission but before its commit are checked against the old ACL, allowing clients to perform unauthorized operations such as writes or deletes after losing permissions or even re-granting themselves full permissions. This is particularly exploitable during transitions from the default OPEN_ACL_UNSAFE to restrictive ACLs, enabling unauthenticated clients to exploit the timing window.

CWE-367Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check.
Implementation
The most basic advice for TOCTOU vulnerabilities is to not perform a check before the use. This does not resolve the underlying issue of the execution of a function on a resource whose state and identity cannot be assured, but it does help to limit the false sense of security given by the check.
Implementation
When the file being altered is owned by the current user and group, set the effective gid and uid to that of the current user and group when executing this statement.
Architecture and Design
Limit the interleaving of operations on files from multiple processes.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.11.3 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.6 (opens in a new tab)
V1.11.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging Race Conditions via Symbolic Links (opens in a new tab)
Leveraging Time-of-Check and Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) Race Conditions (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 4 Nov 2026, 11:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-367

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats