CVE-2022-33681

Improper Hostname Verification in Java Client and Proxy can expose authentication data via MITM

MEDIUM
5.9
CVSS Score
Published: September 23, 2022 at 09:25 AM UTC
Updated: June 17, 2026 at 04:49 AM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorPulsar

Using Apache Pulsar by Apache Software Foundation?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Apache Pulsar - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
MEDIUM5.9
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.7%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

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.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

v < 2.7.52.6 and earlier ≤ v ≤ 2.6.42.7 ≤ v ≤ 2.7.42.8 ≤ v ≤ 2.8.32.8.0 ≤ v < 2.8.42.9 ≤ v ≤ 2.9.22.9.0 ≤ v < 2.9.32.10.02.72.82.9
Affected range stops below 2.7.5, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.8.4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.9.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet. What the record does show:

References (1)

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

5.9MEDIUMCISA-ADP
Attack Vector
NETWORK
Complexity
HIGH
Privileges
NONE
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
HIGH
Integrity
NONE
Availability
NONE
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusMODIFIED
CWE
CWE-295

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card