Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-33222 is a medium-severity Improper Authorization (CWE-285) vulnerability in Linuxfoundation Nats-Server. Its CVSS base score is 4.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 23th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-6 (Least Privilege) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-15994
Vulnerability Data
NATS-Server is a High-Performance server for NATS.io, a cloud and edge native messaging system. Prior to versions 2.11.15 and 2.12.6, users with JetStream admin API access to restore one stream could restore to other stream names, impacting data which should…
more
have been protected against them. Versions 2.11.15 and 2.12.6 contain a fix. As a workaround, if developers have configured users to have limited JetStream restore permissions, temporarily remove those permissions.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Improper authorization (CWE-285) in NATS JetStream restore API allows valid low-privileged accounts to affect unauthorized streams, directly enabling exploitation of a public-facing messaging server and resulting privilege escalation within the service.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces authorization checks on JetStream restore API calls so a user permitted to restore one stream cannot affect other streams.
Requires that JetStream restore permissions be granted only for the specific streams a user is authorized to manage, matching the documented workaround.
Enforces information-flow rules between named streams so a restore operation cannot move or overwrite data outside its authorized flow.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
PR.AA-05 mostly prevents CWE-285 via enforced policy, reviews, and least-privilege authorization decisions, yet CWE-285 remains only partially prevented because code-level check omissions or errors can still occur outside that single control.
Secure SDLC practices catch and eliminate most authorization defects before release, yet a single broad outcome cannot address every design, role, and runtime facet of CWE-285.
PR.AA-01 supplies managed identities and access-request workflows that can support downstream authorization decisions, yet does nothing to enforce or verify authorization checks inside a product, leaving CWE-285 fully unaddressed by this control alone.
Network segmentation/zero-trust limits external reachability (partial prevention of exploitation) but leaves application-level authorization logic untouched, so the CWE remains fully introducible and only one facet of its risk is addressed.
PR.PS-05 blocks unauthorized binaries/DNS while CWE-285 is an in-product authorization-check defect, so the control neither prevents the weakness nor removes any of its risk.
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.
Granular, policy-driven assignment of permissions and dynamic enforcement of those permissions prevent the incorrect or missing authorization decisions that lead to improper authorization flaws.
By requiring documented authorization rules and periodic policy reviews, the control makes it less likely that authorization decisions will be omitted or implemented inconsistently across applications.
Mapping access rights to information classification and business requirements forces correct enforcement of authorization decisions, blocking the incorrect authorization weakness at the policy and implementation stage.
Independent reviewers evaluate whether authorization logic matches policy, thereby reducing the window in which incorrect or missing authorization checks remain in production.
By requiring managers to verify that authorization decisions match policy and to remediate deviations, the control limits the persistence of incorrect or missing authorization checks.
Requiring authorization processes and privilege assignments to be specified during project initiation prevents downstream components from receiving overly broad or incorrect rights that would allow unauthorized actions.