VulnerabilityPublished 10 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-34479: Apache Log4j 1 to Log4j 2 bridge · Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output

Affects Apache Log4j 1 to Log4j 2 bridgeSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium : upgrade to 2.25.4 when convenient.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 45% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.25.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: Low
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: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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: 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 to the Subsequent 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 10 Apr 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 29 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 Apache to 2.25.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Software FoundationApache Log4j 1 to Log4j 2 bridge	Affected >=2.7 <2.25.4 >=3.0.0-alpha1 <=3.0.0-beta2	Fixed in 2.25.4
MavenApache Software Foundation/org.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-1.2-api`pkg:maven/Apache Software Foundation/org.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-1.2-api`Other threats	Affected >=2.7 <2.25.4 >=3.0.0-alpha1 <=3.0.0-beta2	Fixed in 2.25.4
Mavenorg.apache.logging.log4j/log4j-1.2-api`pkg:maven/org.apache.logging.log4j/log4j-1.2-api`Other threats	Affected =2.7 =3.0.0-alpha1	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (1)

cpe:2.3:a:apache:log4j_1_2_api:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

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 to Apache Log4j 1-to-Log4j 2 bridge version 2.25.4, which fixes the improper escaping issue. Additionally, since the bridge is deprecated and will not be included in Log4j 3, users are advised to consult the official migration guide to eliminate reliance on the bridge. Patch status is not explicitly stated in the advisory fields, but the description clearly states that version 2.25.4 corrects the issue.

Description

The Log4j1XmlLayout from the Apache Log4j 1-to-Log4j 2 bridge fails to escape characters forbidden by the XML 1.0 standard, producing malformed XML output. Conforming XML parsers are required to reject documents containing such characters with a fatal error, which may cause downstream log processing systems to drop or fail to index affected records. Two groups of users are affected: * Those using Log4j1XmlLayout directly in a Log4j Core 2 configuration file. * Those using the Log4j 1 configuration compatibility layer with org.apache.log4j.xml.XMLLayout specified as the layout class. Users are advised to upgrade to Apache Log4j 1-to-Log4j 2 bridge version 2.25.4, which corrects this issue. Note: The Apache Log4j 1-to-Log4j 2 bridge is deprecated and will not be present in Log4j 3. Users are encouraged to consult the Log4j 1 to Log4j 2 migration guide https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/migrate-from-log4j1.html , and specifically the section on eliminating reliance on the bridge.

CWE-116Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Content Security Policy (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
Query Parameterization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V14.4.6 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
User-Controlled Filename (opens in a new tab)
Web Server Logs Tampering (opens in a new tab)
AJAX Footprinting (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

CPE configurations (1)

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Apr 2026, 16:21 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-116

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats