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 1.13% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2024
CVE-2024-27309High confidence
Apache Kafka: Potential incorrect access control during migration from ZK mode to KRaft mode
Apache Software Foundation · Apache Kafka
7.4HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Fix not verifiedHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, 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 Kafka 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.
Open-source package ranges1 source-attributed range
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka-metadata | >= 3.5.0, < 3.6.2 | 3.6.2 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 13 Feb 2025 |
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
While an Apache Kafka cluster is being migrated from ZooKeeper mode to KRaft mode, in some cases ACLs will not be correctly enforced. Two preconditions are needed to trigger the bug: 1. The administrator decides to remove an ACL 2. The resource associated with the removed ACL continues to have two or more other ACLs associated with it after the removal. When those two preconditions are met, Kafka will treat the resource as if it had only one ACL associated with it after the removal, rather than the two or more that would be correct. The incorrect condition is cleared by removing all brokers in ZK mode, or by adding a new ACL to the affected resource. Once the migration is completed, there is no metadata loss (the ACLs all remain). The full impact depends on the ACLs in use. If only ALLOW ACLs were configured during the migration, the impact would be limited to availability impact. if DENY ACLs were configured, the impact could include confidentiality and integrity impact depending on the ACLs configured, as the DENY ACLs might be ignored due to this vulnerability during the migration period.
What
While an Apache Kafka cluster is being migrated from ZooKeeper mode to KRaft mode, in some cases ACLs will not be correctly enforced. Two preconditions are needed to trigger the bug: 1. The administrator decides to remove an ACL 2. The resource associated with the removed ACL continues to have two or more other ACLs associated with it after the removal. When those two preconditions are met, Kafka will treat the resource as if it had only one ACL associated with it after the removal, rather than the two or more that would be correct. The incorrect condition is cleared by removing all brokers in ZK mode, or by adding a new ACL to the affected resource. Once the migration is completed, there is no metadata loss (the ACLs all remain). The full impact depends on the ACLs in use. If only ALLOW ACLs were configured during the migration, the impact would be limited to availability impact. if DENY ACLs were configured, the impact could include confidentiality and integrity impact depending on the ACLs configured, as the DENY ACLs might be ignored due to this vulnerability during the migration period.
Why
The application performs an authorisation check, but it does not correctly enforce the required permission boundary.
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
While an Apache Kafka cluster is being migrated from ZooKeeper mode to KRaft mode, in some cases ACLs will not be correctly enforced. Two preconditions are needed to trigger the bug: 1. The administrator decides to remove an ACL 2. The resource associated with the removed ACL continues to have two or more other ACLs associated with it after the removal. When those two preconditions are met, Kafka will treat the resource as if it had only one ACL associated with it after the removal, rather than the two or more that would be correct. The incorrect condition is cleared by removing all brokers in ZK mode, or by adding a new ACL to the affected resource. Once the migration is completed, there is no metadata loss (the ACLs all remain). The full impact depends on the ACLs in use. If only ALLOW ACLs were configured during the migration, the impact would be limited to availability impact. if DENY ACLs were configured, the impact could include confidentiality and integrity impact depending on the ACLs configured, as the DENY ACLs might be ignored due to this vulnerability during the migration period.
Why
The application performs an authorisation check, but it does not correctly enforce the required permission boundary.
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 → Incorrect Authorization → 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-863 ↗
CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization. The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
- 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:H/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.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
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 Kafka: 3.5.0 ≤ 3.5.2, 3.6.0 ≤ 3.6.1
- 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 12 Apr 2024 · Last source change 30 Jul 2025, 03:55 UTC · CWE-863 · Incorrect Authorization
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCISA ADP
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-2024-1140
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched
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.