Several Kafka deserialization paths read a size or count field from input data and use it directly to allocate an array, collection, or byte buffer, with no check against the bytes actually available. A small crafted input can therefore declare a very large size and force a multi-gigabyte allocation. The affected paths are, in Kafka Streams, ProcessorRecordContext (header count), ChangedDeserializer (varint value length), CombinedKeySchema (foreign-key length, which could also produce a negative size), ProcessorMetadata (key length), and AssignmentInfo group-assignment decoding; and, in the clients library, ListDeserializer (used by ListSerde).
Impact:
An attacker can trigger the oversized allocation and raise an OutOfMemoryError that crashes the affected consumer or Kafka Streams thread; the broker and the rest of the cluster are unaffected. The reachable surface depends on the path: writing a crafted record to a Streams application's internal changelog or repartition topics, or committing crafted offset metadata to its consumer group (Streams internal paths); writing a crafted record to any topic that a consumer reads with ListSerde (ListDeserializer); or, as a member of a Streams consumer group, returning crafted assignment data when elected leader (AssignmentInfo). Because a crafted record remains in its topic, the error can recur on restart. The record size limit (max.message.bytes) does not help, because the allocation is driven by a size field rather than by the input's length.
Mitigation:
Upgrade to Apache Kafka 4.2.2, 4.3.2, or 4.4.0. Where authorization is enabled, restrict write access to each application's internal topics and consumer group to its own principal, and restrict who can produce to topics that are consumed with ListSerde.
Resolution:
From Apache Kafka 4.2.2, 4.3.2, and 4.4.0: these deserialization paths validate the declared size against the remaining input before allocating and reject input that fails the check.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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