Mike Read

#1003of 60,391
237.7Total CVSS
Vulnerabilities · 29
Medium
5
High
17
Critical
7
PT-2026-128292
2026-10-28
9.1
CVE-2026-111108
Apache
Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka's code-generated protocol readers pre-size an array's collection from the element count declared by the sender. That count is checked only against the bytes remaining in the request buffer, which assumes about one byte per element; because most elements need several bytes, a request can declare far more elements than the buffer holds and still pass. For a keyed array the reader then allocates an ImplicitLinkedHashCollection of capacity (2 * count +1), so a request of a few tens of megabytes can force a heap allocation several times larger before any element is read. The pattern is emitted into every generated reader, so it affects all Kafka API types with an array field.  Impact: Request parsing happens before any authorization check. On a listener that does not require authentication (for example PLAINTEXT), an unauthenticated attacker can send a few concurrent requests that each declare a very large= array length and allocate many times their wire size in broker heap, crashing the broker with an OutOfMemoryError. The reporter demonstrated three concurrent ~90 MB ProduceRequest (v3) connections exhausting a 1 GB heap (~8x amplification). On listeners that require authentication, the attacker needs valid credentials but no specific ACL, since parsing precedes authorization.. Mitigation: Upgrade to Apache Kafka 4.2.2, 4.3.2, or 4.4.0. Until then, lowering socket.request.max.bytes and restricting network access to broker listeners reduces, but does not remove, exposure. Resolution: From Apache Kafka 4.2.2, 4.3.2, and 4.4.0: generated readers cap the initial array pre-allocation at MessageUtil.MAX PREALLOCATED ARRAY CAPACITY (1000) and grow it on demand, and reject a declared array length above MessageUtil.MAX ARRAY LENGTH (1,000,000).
PT-2026-120757
2026-10-21
8.7
CVE-2026-105937
Apache
Apache Pulsar
Apache Pulsar shadow topics (PIP-180) are topics that read the stored messages of a source topic from that topic's managed ledger. The source topic is selected by setting the reserved topic property PULSAR.SHADOW SOURCE. The admin REST API accepts this property when creating a non-partitioned or partitioned topic and when updating the properties of an existing topic. On these paths the broker authorizes the caller only against the topic being created or updated. It does not authorize the caller against the source topic named in the property. The existing authorization for shadow topic configuration (the SHADOW TOPIC topic policy on the source topic) is applied only to the source-side shadow topics admin API, not to these paths. As a result, an authenticated user who is allowed to create topics or update topic properties in one tenant can bind a topic in that tenant to a persistent topic in any other tenant. With the default authorization provider, these operations require the tenant admin role for the user's own tenant. The user does not need any permission on the source topic, its namespace or its tenant. This impact analysis assumes that Pulsar has been configured with the default authorization provider. For custom authorization providers, the impact could be different. The user can then consume from the shadow topic, using only permissions on their own topic, and receive retained messages that were published to the source topic in the other tenant. Exposure is limited to messages that are still retained and readable in the source topic's ledgers; messages protected with client-side end-to-end encryption cannot be decrypted without the encryption keys. A producer on the shadow topic can also register a new schema version under the source topic's schema, subject to the schema compatibility settings; existing schema versions are not replaced. In addition, the shadow topic's managed ledger applies its own retention, trimming, offloading and deletion to the source topic's ledgers. This can permanently delete the source topic's ledger data from BookKeeper and from tiered storage, regardless of the source topic's own subscriptions and retention policy, including messages that have not yet been acknowledged. Deleting the shadow topic can also delete the source topic's ledgers. This data loss can also affect shadow topics that were configured intentionally by administrators. This issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 3.0.0 before 4.0.14 and from 4.1.0 before 4.2.5. Apache Pulsar 2.x releases do not contain the shadow topic implementation. - 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/. In the fixed versions, shadow topics are disabled by default and are controlled by the new broker configuration setting enableShadowTopics (default false). While it is disabled, the broker rejects creating shadow topics, setting the PULSAR.SHADOW SOURCE property, and loading or replicating to existing shadow topics. Deployments that use shadow topics must set enableShadowTopics=true in the broker configuration of all brokers after upgrading; otherwise existing shadow topics will not be loaded. When shadow topics are enabled, binding a shadow topic to a source topic in a different tenant requires the superuser role. The fixed versions also prevent a shadow topic from deleting or trimming the ledgers and offloaded data of its source topic. Affected versions provide no configuration option to disable shadow topics. Users who cannot upgrade immediately can reduce exposure by granting the tenant admin role only to trusted principals.