PulsarApplication · Apache
CVE-2024-28098
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 · uneditedThe vulnerability allows authenticated users with only produce or consume permissions to modify topic-level policies, such as retention, TTL, and offloading settings. These management operations should be restricted to users with the tenant admin role or super user role. This issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 2.7.1 to 2.10.5, from 2.11.0 to 2.11.3, from 3.0.0 to 3.0.2, from 3.1.0 to 3.1.2, and 3.2.0. 2.10 Apache Pulsar users should upgrade to at least 2.10.6. 2.11 Apache Pulsar users should upgrade to at least 2.11.4. 3.0 Apache Pulsar users should upgrade to at least 3.0.3. 3.1 Apache Pulsar users should upgrade to at least 3.1.3. 3.2 Apache Pulsar users should upgrade to at least 3.2.1. Users operating versions prior to those listed above should upgrade to the aforementioned patched versions or newer versions.
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 confidenceAn authorization bypass in Apache Pulsar allows authenticated users with only produce or consume permissions to modify topic-level policies (retention, TTL, offloading settings) that should require tenant admin or super user role. This is a privilege escalation vulnerability where standard messaging permissions are incorrectly granting administrative control over topic configurations.
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
PulsarApplication
>= 2.7.1, < 2.10.6>= 2.11.0, < 2.11.4>= 3.0.0, < 3.0.3>= 3.1.0, < 3.1.3= 3.2.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
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 the installed Apache Pulsar versionCheck the Pulsar broker version via the admin API using `bin/pulsar-admin brokers version` or inspect the broker logs for the version string at startup. If running as a service, check the installed package version.Affected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: >= 2.7.1 and < 2.10.6; >= 2.11.0 and < 2.11.4; >= 3.0.0 and < 3.0.3; >= 3.1.0 and < 3.1.3; or exactly 3.2.0.
-
Verify authorization is enabledExamine the Pulsar broker configuration file (broker.conf, standalone.conf, or conf/broker.conf) for the setting `authorizationEnabled`. Also check `authorizationAllowWildcardsMatching` if used.Affected if Authorization is disabled (`authorizationEnabled=false`) because this would grant super-user privileges to all authenticated users, bypassing any role-based checks.
-
Inspect role permissions in the authorization providerQuery the Pulsar authorization provider to list all defined roles and their permissions. Use `bin/pulsar-admin namespaces permissions` and `bin/pulsar-admin topics permissions` to review which roles have produce, consume, or admin permissions on topics and namespaces.Affected if There exist roles that have only produce or consume permissions on topics but should not have the ability to modify retention, TTL, or offloading policies.
-
Test policy modification with a limited-permission roleCreate a test topic and assign a role with only produce or consume permission. Then attempt to modify topic policies (retention, TTL, offload) using that role via admin API commands such as `bin/pulsar-admin topics set-retention` or `bin/pulsar-admin topics set-ttl`.Affected if The produce/consume-only role successfully modifies topic-level policies, indicating the vulnerability is present and exploitable.
You are affected if your Pulsar version is in the vulnerable range AND authorization is enabled AND any user with only produce/consume permissions can modify topic policies (retention, TTL, or offloading settings) that should require tenant admin or super user permissions.
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 · scoped2.10.62.11.43.0.3
Upgrade Apache Pulsar to the patched versions (2.10.6, 2.11.4, 3.0.3, 3.1.3, or 3.2.1+). Alternatively, audit and restrict role assignments to ensure only tenant admins and super users can modify topic policies.
Upgrade to 2.10.6+ / 2.11.4+ / 3.0.3+ / 3.1.3+ / 3.2.1+ depending on your current version branch
- 1. Identify the current Apache Pulsar version running in your environment
- 2. Determine which version branch you are on (2.10.x, 2.11.x, 3.0.x, 3.1.x, or 3.2.x)
- 3. Review the upgrade path for your version branch from the Apache Pulsar upgrade documentation
- 4. Back up all Pulsar data, configurations, and metadata
- 5. Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first
- 6. For 2.10.x: upgrade to version 2.10.6 or later
- 7. For 2.11.x: upgrade to version 2.11.4 or later
- 8. For 3.0.x: upgrade to version 3.0.3 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Pulsar
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-28098 — 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-2024-28098 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