VulnerabilityPublished 14 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-82441: Apache Storm Nimbus · Improper Input Validation

Affects Apache Storm NimbusSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical : upgrade to 3.1.0 as a priority.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 18% 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:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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-5978-3w53-3qhw

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 to Apache Storm Nimbus version 3.1.0 or later, where submissions are validated to ensure all dependency keys exist in the blobstore. For existing topologies with invalid keys, operators should inspect Nimbus logs to identify missing keys and either remove or resubmit the affected topologies. If immediate upgrade is not possible, restrict topology submission permissions to trusted users only.

Description

Description A submitted topology carries two lists of blobstore keys, `dependency_jars` and `dependency_artifacts`, which the client fills in after uploading the corresponding blobs. Nimbus performed no validation of their contents on the submission path, yet acts on them in two places. During cleanup of a finished topology, Nimbus deletes the keys named in those lists, and the deletion is performed as the Nimbus subject, for which the blobstore short-circuits its ACL check. A submitter who listed a key belonging to another topology, such as its `-stormjar.jar`, could therefore cause that blob to be deleted when their own topology was cleaned up. Separately, on acquiring leadership a Nimbus compares the dependency keys of all active topologies against the blobstore contents and surrenders leadership if any is missing. A single key that does not exist, on a single active topology, therefore causes every Nimbus to acquire leadership, surrender it and requeue indefinitely, leaving the cluster without a leader and unable to schedule, clean up or accept submissions. Mitigation Upgrade to 3.1.0, where a submission is refused unless every entry in both lists is a dependency blob key and exists in the blobstore. Note that this validates new submissions only; a topology stored by an affected version with an invalid list is unaffected by the upgrade. An operator whose cluster is failing to retain a leader should inspect the Nimbus log for the dependency keys reported as missing and remove or resubmit the topology naming them. Users who cannot upgrade immediately should restrict topology submission to trusted principals. Credit This issue was discovered by rzo1 while investigating an unrelated blobstore defect.

Impact

An attacker submitting a topology can delete blobstore keys belonging to other topologies, potentially disrupting their operation. Furthermore, the cluster can lose Nimbus leadership due to missing dependency keys, causing a denial of service where scheduling, cleanup, and new submissions are blocked. This impacts cluster availability and stability.

Summary

Apache Storm Nimbus accepts topology submissions containing two lists of blobstore keys: dependency_jars and dependency_artifacts. Nimbus fails to validate these lists on submission, allowing a submitter to specify keys belonging to other topologies. During cleanup, Nimbus deletes keys named in these lists without proper ACL checks, enabling deletion of blobs from other topologies. Additionally, when Nimbus acquires leadership, it checks dependency keys of all active topologies against the blobstore contents. If any key is missing, Nimbus repeatedly acquires and surrenders leadership, causing a leaderless cluster that cannot schedule, clean up, or accept submissions. The vulnerability affects versions >=3.0.0 and <3.1.0. Version 3.1.0 introduces validation to reject submissions with invalid or missing dependency keys. Existing topologies with invalid keys remain unaffected by the upgrade.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (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)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-639Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #24OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Architecture and Design
For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
Architecture and Design
Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V4.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (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, 14:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20, CWE-639

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats