Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 0.69% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2022
CVE-2022-33681High confidence
Improper Hostname Verification in Java Client and Proxy can expose authentication data via MITM
Apache Software Foundation · Apache Pulsar
5.9MediumCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Fix not verifiedMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Apache Software Foundation Apache Pulsar and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
Delayed TLS hostname verification in the Pulsar Java Client and the Pulsar Proxy make each client vulnerable to a man in the middle attack. Connections from the Pulsar Java Client to the Pulsar Broker/Proxy and connections from the Pulsar Proxy to the Pulsar Broker are vulnerable. Authentication data is sent before verifying the server’s TLS certificate matches the hostname, which means authentication data could be exposed to an attacker. An attacker can only take advantage of this vulnerability by taking control of a machine 'between' the client and the server. The attacker must then actively manipulate traffic to perform the attack by providing the client with a cryptographically valid certificate for an unrelated host. Because the client sends authentication data before performing hostname verification, an attacker could gain access to the client’s authentication data. The client eventually closes the connection when it verifies the hostname and identifies the targeted hostname does not match a hostname on the certificate. Because the client eventually closes the connection, the value of the intercepted authentication data depends on the authentication method used by the client. Token based authentication and username/password authentication methods are vulnerable because the authentication data can be used to impersonate the client in a separate session. This issue affects Apache Pulsar Java Client versions 2.7.0 to 2.7.4; 2.8.0 to 2.8.3; 2.9.0 to 2.9.2; 2.10.0; 2.6.4 and earlier.
What
Delayed TLS hostname verification in the Pulsar Java Client and the Pulsar Proxy make each client vulnerable to a man in the middle attack. Connections from the Pulsar Java Client to the Pulsar Broker/Proxy and connections from the Pulsar Proxy to the Pulsar Broker are vulnerable. Authentication data is sent before verifying the server’s TLS certificate matches the hostname, which means authentication data could be exposed to an attacker. An attacker can only take advantage of this vulnerability by taking control of a machine 'between' the client and the server. The attacker must then actively manipulate traffic to perform the attack by providing the client with a cryptographically valid certificate for an unrelated host. Because the client sends authentication data before performing hostname verification, an attacker could gain access to the client’s authentication data. The client eventually closes the connection when it verifies the hostname and identifies the targeted hostname does not match a hostname on the certificate. Because the client eventually closes the connection, the value of the intercepted authentication data depends on the authentication method used by the client. Token based authentication and username/password authentication methods are vulnerable because the authentication data can be used to impersonate the client in a separate session. This issue affects Apache Pulsar Java Client versions 2.7.0 to 2.7.4; 2.8.0 to 2.8.3; 2.9.0 to 2.9.2; 2.10.0; 2.6.4 and earlier.
Why
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Delayed TLS hostname verification in the Pulsar Java Client and the Pulsar Proxy make each client vulnerable to a man in the middle attack. Connections from the Pulsar Java Client to the Pulsar Broker/Proxy and connections from the Pulsar Proxy to the Pulsar Broker are vulnerable. Authentication data is sent before verifying the server’s TLS certificate matches the hostname, which means authentication data could be exposed to an attacker. An attacker can only take advantage of this vulnerability by taking control of a machine 'between' the client and the server. The attacker must then actively manipulate traffic to perform the attack by providing the client with a cryptographically valid certificate for an unrelated host. Because the client sends authentication data before performing hostname verification, an attacker could gain access to the client’s authentication data. The client eventually closes the connection when it verifies the hostname and identifies the targeted hostname does not match a hostname on the certificate. Because the client eventually closes the connection, the value of the intercepted authentication data depends on the authentication method used by the client. Token based authentication and username/password authentication methods are vulnerable because the authentication data can be used to impersonate the client in a separate session. This issue affects Apache Pulsar Java Client versions 2.7.0 to 2.7.4; 2.8.0 to 2.8.3; 2.9.0 to 2.9.2; 2.10.0; 2.6.4 and earlier.
Why
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Certificate Validation → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-295 ↗
CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation. The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.INoneIntegrity impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- Apache Pulsar: 2.10.0, 2.7 ≤ 2.7.4, 2.8 ≤ 2.8.3, 2.9 ≤ 2.9.2, 2.6 and earlier ≤ 2.6.4
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 23 Sept 2022 · Last source change 22 May 2025, 20:37 UTC · CWE-295 · Improper Certificate Validation
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceNIST NVD
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2022-6774
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.