RocketmqApplication · Apache
CVE-2023-33246
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedFor RocketMQ versions 5.1.0 and below, under certain conditions, there is a risk of remote command execution. Several components of RocketMQ, including NameServer, Broker, and Controller, are leaked on the extranet and lack permission verification, an attacker can exploit this vulnerability by using the update configuration function to execute commands as the system users that RocketMQ is running as. Additionally, an attacker can achieve the same effect by forging the RocketMQ protocol content. To prevent these attacks, users are recommended to upgrade to version 5.1.1 or above for using RocketMQ 5.x or 4.9.6 or above for using RocketMQ 4.x .
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceRocketMQ versions 5.1.0 and below have a critical vulnerability where NameServer, Broker, and Controller components exposed on the internet lack permission verification. Attackers can execute remote commands either by exploiting the update configuration function to run system commands as the RocketMQ user, or by forging RocketMQ protocol content.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
RocketmqApplication
< 4.9.6>= 5.0.0, < 5.1.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify RocketMQ versionRun 'mqnameserver -v' for NameServer or 'broker -v' for Broker components. Check the 'distribution/target' folder for version files or review your deployment manifests/bom for the installed RocketMQ version.Affected if Installed version is < 4.9.6 OR >= 5.0.0 and < 5.1.1
-
Check if NameServer is network exposedReview the NameServer configuration (typically in conf/namesrv.conf) or running process. Check the 'listenPort' setting and the bind address. Use 'netstat -tlnp | grep 9876' (default NameServer port) to see if it listens on 0.0.0.0 or an external IP rather than only localhost (127.0.0.1).Affected if NameServer listens on 0.0.0.0 or an external IP address, making it reachable from untrusted networks
-
Check if Broker is network exposedReview Broker configuration (typically in conf/broker.conf). Check the 'listenPort' and 'brokerIP1' settings. Use 'netstat -tlnp | grep 10911' (default Broker port) to determine binding addresses. Verify the broker is not bound to external interfaces accessible from untrusted networks.Affected if Broker listens on 0.0.0.0 or an external IP address rather than only localhost or trusted internal networks
-
Check if Controller has network exposure (if deployed)If using Controller mode (5.x), review Controller configuration and check listening ports (typically 9878 or similar). Use netstat to verify binding addresses. Ensure Controller is not exposed to untrusted networks.Affected if Controller component is listening on external interfaces accessible from untrusted networks
-
Verify authentication is disabled or missing on exposed componentsReview RocketMQ configuration files for 'aclEnable' (access control list) setting in broker.conf or namesrv.conf. Check whether the 'simpleAuthPlugin' or ACL plugin is configured and enabled. Default configurations often have authentication disabled.Affected if Authentication (ACL) is not enabled on the exposed NameServer, Broker, or Controller components
Environment is affected if running RocketMQ version < 4.9.6 or >= 5.0.0 and < 5.1.1 AND any of the NameServer, Broker, or Controller components are network-exposed to untrusted networks without authentication enabled.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped4.9.65.1.1
Upgrade RocketMQ to version 5.1.1 or higher for 5.x installations, or 4.9.6 or higher for 4.x installations. Additionally, ensure components are not exposed to the internet and implement network segmentation.
RocketMQ 4.9.6 (for 4.x branch) or RocketMQ 5.1.1 (for 5.x branch)
- 1. Identify which RocketMQ major version branch is currently in use (4.x or 5.x)
- 2. For RocketMQ 4.x users: upgrade to version 4.9.6 or later
- 3. For RocketMQ 5.x users: upgrade to version 5.1.1 or later
- 4. After upgrading, verify that the NameServer, Broker, and Controller components are not exposed to untrusted networks
- 5. Implement network-level access controls to prevent unauthorized access to RocketMQ components
- 6. Test that legitimate RocketMQ operations function correctly after the upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Rocketmq
Exploited in the wild — priority engagement
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-33246 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-33246 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data