Apache Pulsar: Improper Authentication for Pulsar Proxy Statistics Endpoint
Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it.
Improper Authentication vulnerability in Apache Pulsar Proxy allows an attacker to connect to the /proxy-stats endpoint without authentication. The vulnerable endpoint exposes detailed statistics about live connections, along with the… More
Improper Authentication vulnerability in Apache Pulsar Proxy allows an attacker to connect to the /proxy-stats endpoint without authentication. The vulnerable endpoint exposes detailed statistics about live connections, along with the capability to modify the logging level of proxied connections without requiring proper authentication credentials. This issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 2.6.0 to 2.10.5, from 2.11.0 to 2.11.2, from 3.0.0 to 3.0.1, and 3.1.0. The known risks include exposing sensitive information such as connected client IP and unauthorized logging level manipulation which could lead to a denial-of-service condition by significantly increasing the proxy's logging overhead. When deployed via the Apache Pulsar Helm chart within Kubernetes environments, the actual client IP might not be revealed through the load balancer's default behavior, which typically obscures the original source IP addresses when externalTrafficPolicy is being configured to "Cluster" by default. The /proxy-stats endpoint contains topic level statistics, however, in the default configuration, the topic level statistics aren't known to be exposed. 2.10 Pulsar Proxy users should upgrade to at least 2.10.6. 2.11 Pulsar Proxy users should upgrade to at least 2.11.3. 3.0 Pulsar Proxy users should upgrade to at least 3.0.2. 3.1 Pulsar Proxy users should upgrade to at least 3.1.1. Users operating versions prior to those listed above should upgrade to the aforementioned patched versions or newer versions. Additionally, it's imperative to recognize that the Apache Pulsar Proxy is not intended for direct exposure to the internet. The architectural design of Pulsar Proxy assumes that it will operate within a secured network environment, safeguarded by appropriate perimeter defenses.
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 3.1Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality and low impact on availability.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.Unchanged
- Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.High
- Integrity impactData cannot be changed by the attacker.None
- Availability impactAn attacker can slow the component down or interrupt it now and then.Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:LCISA has seen no public exploit and no attacks.
Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.
A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.
Public exploits
None foundNo exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.
Timeline
- 2024-03-12CVE publishedCVE List
- 2025-03-11F5 ships a ruleApache Pulsar Unauthenticated Access To /proxy-stats
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
First rule 2025-03-11, 364 days after the CVE was published.
Added: signature 200013105 "Apache Pulsar Unauthenticated Access To /proxy-stats" (Authentication/Authorization Attacks, risk Medium), systems: Various systems. References: CVE-2022-34321.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.