Apache Polaris accepts literal * characters in namespace and table names. When it
later builds temporary S3 access policies for delegated table access, those
same characters appear to be reused unescaped in S3 IAM resource patterns
and
s3:prefix conditions.
In S3 IAM policy matching, * is treated as a wildcard rather than as
ordinary text. That means temporary credentials issued for one crafted table
can match the storage path of a different table.
In private testing against Polaris 1.4.0 using Polaris' AWS S3 temporary-
credential path on both MinIO and real AWS S3, credentials returned for
crafted tables such as f*.t1, f*.*, *.*, and foo.* could reach other
tables' S3 locations.
The confirmed behavior includes:
- reading another table's metadata control file ([Iceberg metadata JSON]);
- listing another table's exact S3 table prefix ([table prefix]);
- and, when write delegation was returned for the crafted table, creating
and
deleting an object under another table's exact S3 table prefix.
A control case using ordinary different names did not allow the same
cross-table access.
A least-privilege AWS S3 variant was also confirmed in which the attacker
principal had no Polaris permissions on the victim table and only the
minimal permissions required to create and use a crafted wildcard table
(namespace-scoped TABLE_CREATE and TABLE_WRITE_DATA on *). In that
setup, direct Polaris access to foo.t1 remained forbidden, but the
attacker
could still create and load *.*, receive delegated S3 credentials, and use
those credentials to list, read, create, and delete objects under foo.t1.
In Iceberg, the metadata JSON file is a control file: it tells readers which
data files belong to the table, which snapshots exist, and which table
version
to read. So unauthorized access to it is already a meaningful
confidentiality
problem. The confirmed write-capable variant means the issue is not limited
to
disclosure.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.9): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.9 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.9 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% 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; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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; 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 total (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