CVE-2025-30215
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 · uneditedNATS-Server is a High-Performance server for NATS.io, the cloud and edge native messaging system. In versions starting from 2.2.0 but prior to 2.10.27 and 2.11.1, the management of JetStream assets happens with messages in the $JS. subject namespace in the system account; this is partially exposed into regular accounts to allow account holders to manage their assets. Some of the JS API requests were missing access controls, allowing any user with JS management permissions in any account to perform certain administrative actions on any JS asset in any other account. At least one of the unprotected APIs allows for data destruction. None of the affected APIs allow disclosing stream contents. This vulnerability is fixed in v2.11.1 or v2.10.27.
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 confidenceNATS-Server versions 2.2.0 through 2.10.26 and 2.11.0 have missing access controls on certain JetStream API endpoints. Users with JS management permissions in any account can perform administrative actions (including data destruction) on JetStream assets in any other account, due to improper authorization checks on the $JS. subject namespace.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/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 the installed NATS-Server versionRun 'nats-server --version' or check the binary version, or query the server info endpointAffected if The version falls between 2.2.0 and 2.10.26 inclusive, or is exactly 2.11.0 (versions 2.10.27, 2.11.1 and later are not affected)
-
Determine if JetStream is enabledCheck the NATS-Server configuration or run 'nats server info' to see if JetStream is listed as activeAffected if JetStream is enabled and running - the vulnerability only affects JetStream API endpoints
-
Verify multiple accounts exist in the configurationReview the NATS-Server configuration file for multiple 'account' definitions, or query the account list via the CLIAffected if More than one account is defined - the flaw allows any account with JS management permissions to access another account's JetStream assets
-
Inspect authorization rules for the $JS. subject namespaceReview the authorization and permission blocks in the NATS-Server configuration, specifically looking for publish and subscribe rules on $JS. subjectsAffected if There are no explicit restrictions or there is an overly permissive wildcard on $JS. that allows cross-account access to JetStream administrative endpoints
You are affected if NATS-Server is version 2.2.0 through 2.10.26 or 2.11.0, JetStream is enabled, multiple accounts exist, and there are no explicit deny rules preventing cross-account JetStream API access.
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 · scopedUpgrade NATS-Server to version 2.10.27 or 2.11.1 or later. Verify cross-account JetStream isolation is restored after patching.
Upgrade to v2.10.27 (for 2.10.x users) or v2.11.1 (for 2.11.x users)
- 1. Identify the current NATS-Server version by running 'nats-server --version' or checking the service logs
- 2. Create a full backup of the NATS-Server configuration (nats-server.conf) and any persistent JetStream data
- 3. Stop the NATS-Server service gracefully to avoid data corruption: 'systemctl stop nats-server' or 'nats-server --signal stop'
- 4. Use the package manager or download the appropriate fixed release from https://github.com/nats-io/nats-server/releases
- 5. For version 2.10.x line: upgrade to v2.10.27; for version 2.11.x line: upgrade to v2.11.1
- 6. Restore the configuration file from backup
- 7. Start the NATS-Server service: 'systemctl start nats-server'
- 8. Verify the server is running the fixed version: 'nats-server --version'
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,840.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-30215 — 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-2025-30215 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