When package management is enabled, Pulsar Functions, Sources and Sinks can be registered or updated from a package stored in the Pulsar Packages Management Service by supplying a package URL. The Pulsar Functions worker authorized these requests only against the namespace in which the component was being registered or updated. It did not check whether the requesting user was permitted to access packages in the namespace that the package URL refers to, and it retrieved the package from the broker using the worker's own credentials. The permission check of the Packages Management Service was therefore applied to the worker's identity instead of the requesting user's. Package URLs of transform functions supplied when registering or updating a sink were handled in the same way.
An authenticated user who is permitted to register or update functions, sources or sinks in any namespace of their own tenant could use this to obtain the contents of a package stored in a namespace of another tenant, without having the packages permission on that namespace. The impact is limited to disclosure of package contents, which may include application code, business logic or embedded credentials. The issue does not allow packages to be modified or deleted and does not affect availability.
This issue only affects deployments that have authentication and authorization enabled and in which package management has been enabled: the broker setting enablePackagesManagement and, in current releases, the functions worker setting functionsWorkerEnablePackageManagement. Both settings are disabled by default.
This issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 2.8.0 before 4.0.14, from 4.1.0 through 4.1.3, and from 4.2.0 before 4.2.5.
- 4.0.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.0.14.
- 4.1.x and 4.2.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.2.5.
Users operating versions prior to those listed above should upgrade to the aforementioned patched versions or newer versions.
The currently supported Apache Pulsar release lines are 4.0.x and 5.0.x. The supported versions schedule is available at https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.0 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-10). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it