Home/CVE/Delayed TLS hostname verification in the Pulsar Java Client and the Pulsar Proxy make each client vulnerable to a man in
CVE

CVE-2022-33681

Delayed TLS hostname verification in the Pulsar Java Client and the Pulsar Proxy make each client vulnerable to a man in

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.

MEDIUM · CVSS 5.9 EPSS 0.00564
Schedule remediation
  • Public exploit or PoC is available
Sigma rules0 YARA rules0
Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots
How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch
This page is every public fact about CVE-2022-33681, cross-linked. Its job is to answer one question fast - does this need my attention now? - and then hand you the two things you do about it. Here is how an analyst reads it.
Triage: should I act now? Four signals, and they are not interchangeable:
CVSSseverity - how bad it is IF exploited, 0-10. A high CVSS alone is not urgency; a flaw can be a perfect 10 and never actually be attacked. EPSSprobability - a model’s estimate of the chance it is exploited in the next 30 days, 0-1. This is the “will it actually happen” signal. CISA KEVconfirmed - it is being exploited in the wild right now. The strongest signal on the page; KEV beats any score. Weaponisedavailability - public exploits / PoCs, and especially Metasploit modules rated Excellent / Great. Reliable, packaged exploit code means low-skill attackers can use it today.
How they combine: KEV, or a dependable Metasploit module, means patch now regardless of CVSS. High CVSS + low EPSS + no exploit is real but not an emergency - schedule it. Low CVSS but KEV-listed still gets patched now. The verdict above already weighed these for you; this is how it got there.
Then what - two workflows:
Detectwhen you cannot patch today, follow this CVE to the ATT&CK techniques it enables, then Build a SIEM detection (the green button) - author a rule, test it in Atomic, deploy it. That buys visibility while the patch waits. PatchAffected products / packages tell you if you are exposed; Fixed versions by distribution and Vendor advisories give the exact version that closes it.
Reading order for the panels below: verdict + badges, then Public exploits / Metasploit (is it weaponised), then ATT&CK techniques + Sigma / IDS rules (can I detect it), then Affected products / packages + Fixed versions (am I exposed, what patches it), then Threat actors / IOCs (who uses it), then Scoring & timeline / references (the evidence).

ATT&CK techniques

1

Techniques this CVE enables - linked via CWECAPECATT&CK. High◆ = named directly in ATT&CK or Nuclei templates.

▤ Build a SIEM detection for these techniques

CAPEC attack patterns

2

Weakness Classification

Affected Products & Versions

4
apache pulsar>= 2.8.0 and < 2.8.4
apache pulsar>= 2.9.0 and < 2.9.3
apache pulsarall versions

Affected Packages

1
Language-ecosystem packages (from OSV) tied to this CVE, with the version that fixes it - the dependency-level detail NVD doesn’t carry.
Maven org.apache.pulsar:pulsar-client MODERATE fixed in 2.7.5

Public Exploits & PoCs

1
These PoC and exploit links come from public sources and are not verified to be safe or functional. Review the code before running anything, and treat unverified entries as untrusted.

Scoring & Timeline

5.9
MEDIUM · CVSS v3.1 · [email protected]
View on NVD
Attack Vector
Network Adjacent Local Physical
Attack Complexity
Low High
Privileges Required
None Low High
User Interaction
None Required
Scope
Unchanged Changed
Confidentiality
None Low High
Integrity
None Low High
Availability
None Low High
Published to NVD23 Sep 2022 · 10:15 AM
CVSS VectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
SSVC triage · cisa-vulnrichment
Exploitation
none
Automatable
no
Technical impact
partial
SSVC asks the questions that actually drive patch urgency: is it being exploited, can attacks be automated, and how total is the impact.

Vendor Advisories

1
rhsaRHSA-2023:2100Moderate
🔗

References & Sources

1
Source URLs (vendor pages, mailing lists, write-ups). Exploit/PoC links are in their own section above to avoid duplication.
threatengine.sh