CVE-2023-41317
Apollographql Apollo Router 1.28.0 – 1.29.1
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-41317 is a high-severity Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions (CWE-755) vulnerability in Apollographql Apollo Router. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 44% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-2607
Vulnerability Data
The Apollo Router is a configurable, high-performance graph router written in Rust to run a federated supergraph that uses Apollo Federation 2. Affected versions are subject to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) type vulnerability which causes the Router to panic and terminate…
more
when GraphQL Subscriptions are enabled. It can be triggered when **all of the following conditions are met**: 1. Running Apollo Router v1.28.0, v1.28.1 or v1.29.0 ("impacted versions"); **and** 2. The Supergraph schema provided to the Router (either via Apollo Uplink or explicitly via other configuration) **has a `subscription` type** with root-fields defined; **and** 3. The YAML configuration provided to the Router **has subscriptions enabled** (they are _disabled_ by default), either by setting `enabled: true` _or_ by setting a valid `mode` within the `subscriptions` object (as seen in [subscriptions' documentation](https://www.apollographql.com/docs/router/executing-operations/subscription-support/#router-setup)); **and** 4. An [anonymous](https://spec.graphql.org/draft/#sec-Anonymous-Operation-Definitions) (i.e., un-named) `subscription` operation (e.g., `subscription { ... }`) is received by the Router If **all four** of these criteria are met, the impacted versions will panic and terminate. There is no data-privacy risk or sensitive-information exposure aspect to this vulnerability. This is fixed in Apollo Router v1.29.1. Users are advised to upgrade. Updating to v1.29.1 should be a clear and simple upgrade path for those running impacted versions. However, if Subscriptions are **not** necessary for your Graph – but are enabled via configuration — then disabling subscriptions is another option to mitigate the risk.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Provides defined handling (alert and additional actions) for the exceptional condition of audit logging failure.
Supplies a concrete handling action (safe mode) for exceptional conditions, mitigating risks from improper or absent handling that could allow continued attacks.
By preparing users for contingency scenarios, the control promotes proper handling of exceptional conditions instead of default or unsafe behaviors.
An updated contingency plan defines current actions for exceptional conditions, reducing the window for attackers to exploit improper handling leading to system failure.
Procedures ensure proper handling of exceptional conditions to support effective incident response.
Incident response testing confirms proper handling of exceptional conditions to limit exploit impact.
Gives users guidance on incident handling, reducing improper handling of exceptional conditions that could stem from exploited weaknesses.
Enforces structured response to exceptional conditions so the system cannot remain in an unsafe state.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Documented operating procedures may specify exception handling but do not guarantee implementation.
Logging captures unhandled exceptions, aiding detection but not preventing the weakness.
Monitoring can surface unhandled exceptions but does not enforce proper handling.
Secure SDLC mandates exception-handling requirements and testing that directly prevent improper handling of exceptional conditions.
A.8.26 explicitly lists resilience against malicious attacks including SQL injections, input validation, error message handling, and several integrity/authorization requirements that address exceptional conditions in a minority of cases, but most CWE-755 instances (e.g. unhandled nulls, resource errors, unexpected states) fall outside its named topics.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (fail securely, least privilege, defense-in-depth, distrust external input, assume-breach) plus design reviews that can catch and stop many but not all mishandlings of exceptional conditions before they reach production code; a bounded remainder (e.g. subtle runtime error paths, library-level faults, or post-review regressions) can still be present and exploitable.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.