VulnerabilityPublished 14 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-82432: Apache Storm Nimbus · Incorrect Authorization

Affects Apache Storm NimbusSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 3.1.0 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 30% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.1.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: 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 impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 14 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 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.

ghsa-hw7r-wm97-cf8j

What to do

Upgrade Apache to 3.1.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Software FoundationApache Storm Nimbus	Affected >=3.0.0 <3.1.0	Fixed in 3.1.0
MavenApache Software Foundation/org.apache.storm:storm-server`pkg:maven/Apache Software Foundation/org.apache.storm:storm-server`Other threats	Affected >=3.0.0 <3.1.0	Fixed in 3.1.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Apache Storm Nimbus to version 3.1.0 or later, where rebalance configuration overrides are validated against the caller's authorization and listBlobs enforces authorization checks. For users unable to upgrade immediately, restrict rebalance privileges to trusted principals only, considering that membership in a topology's topology.users or topology.groups grants rebalance rights.

Description

Description Nimbus validated `topology.blobstore.map` against the calling subject at submission time only. The rebalance operation accepts configuration overrides and stripped a small set of keys from them, but never re-ran that validation, so a caller authorised to rebalance a topology could introduce a blobstore map entry naming a blob whose ACL does not grant them access. Supervisors localise whatever key the map names, placing the blob's contents into the topology's working directory. The same advisory covers `listBlobs`, which performed no authorization check and passed no subject, unlike the neighbouring `getBlobMeta` and `beginBlobDownload` operations. It therefore returned every key in the blobstore to any caller able to reach the Nimbus Thrift port, which provides the key names that make the above practical. On its own the disclosure is metadata only. Mitigation Upgrade to 3.1.0, where rebalance configuration overrides are validated exactly as submission-time configuration is, against the rebalancing caller, and where `listBlobs` applies the configured authorization. Users who cannot upgrade immediately should restrict rebalance rights to trusted principals, keeping in mind that membership of a topology's `topology.users` or `topology.groups` confers them. Credit The ASF -- found using Claude agents to study the security of open-source projects, validated and reported by Apache Storm.

Impact

An attacker with rebalance privileges on a topology could introduce unauthorized blob references, potentially causing supervisors to expose blob contents they should not access. Additionally, any caller able to reach the Nimbus Thrift port could retrieve metadata about all blobs via listBlobs, revealing sensitive information about stored blobs. This could lead to unauthorized data exposure within the Apache Storm environment.

Summary

Apache Storm Nimbus validated the topology.blobstore.map configuration only at submission time against the caller's authorization. However, during the rebalance operation, configuration overrides were accepted without revalidating authorization, allowing a caller authorized to rebalance a topology to add blobstore map entries naming blobs without proper ACL permissions. Supervisors would localize these blobs into the topology's working directory, potentially exposing unauthorized data. Furthermore, the listBlobs operation did not perform any authorization checks and returned all blob keys to any caller able to access the Nimbus Thrift port, exposing metadata. The vulnerability is addressed in Apache Storm 3.1.0 by applying the same authorization validation during rebalance and enforcing authorization on listBlobs.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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 14 Sep 2026, 14:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats