CVE-2026-82433
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-82433 is a medium-severity Insufficiently Protected Credentials (CWE-522) vulnerability in Apache Storm (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 26th 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-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-25 (Reference Monitor) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-77524
Vulnerability Data
Description `getNimbusConf` returned the complete daemon configuration without redaction after only a user-level authorization check. Where the cluster is configured with them, that response includes `storm.zookeeper.auth.payload` and the keystore and truststore passwords for the Thrift, Netty and ZooKeeper TLS configuration.…
more
The project masks passwords elsewhere before display, so the omission here is inconsistent rather than intended. The UI endpoint `/api/v1/cluster/configuration` compounded this. It carried no `@AuthNimbusOp` annotation, and the authorization filter treated a missing annotation as "no gate required" and returned immediately, so the endpoint applied no per-user check at all and proxied the request under the UI daemon's own principal. Any user able to pass `ui.filter` therefore received the full configuration, including principals that Nimbus itself would have refused. Mitigation Upgrade to 3.1.0, where credential-bearing values are masked before the configuration is served and where every UI API endpoint must declare its authorization explicitly. Users who cannot upgrade immediately should place the UI behind an authenticating reverse proxy that restricts `/api/v1/cluster/configuration`, and should rotate the ZooKeeper authentication payload and any TLS keystore or truststore passwords that were reachable through it. Credit The ASF -- found using Claude agents to study the security of open-source projects, validated and reported by Apache Storm.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
AC-24 mandates that access control decisions are applied to each request, preventing bypass of authorization logic.
AC-25 requires a tamperproof, always-invoked reference monitor that ensures authorization checks cannot be omitted.
AC-3 directly requires enforcement of authorization decisions on every access request, structurally eliminating missing authorization checks.
AC-6 reduces the set of actions reachable without proper authorization, limiting blast radius of missing checks.
Authenticator management requires secure generation, storage, and distribution of credentials, directly stopping insecure methods.
Protection of information at rest requires encryption or equivalent safeguards for stored credentials.
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.
A.5.10 only requires awareness, a topic-specific acceptable-use policy stating expected behaviours/monitoring, and procedures referencing other controls (e.g. access restrictions, marking, disposal); it performs none of the verb on CWE-522's insecure credential transmission/storage, which requires technical protections like encryption or secure channels that this governance clause does not supply.
Requiring formal authorization of every access request before rights are granted ensures that checks for required permissions are performed, preventing missing authorization checks from being introduced.
A.5.17 mandates secure allocation, transmission, storage, hashing/encryption per 8.24, strong non-reusable passwords, immediate change of defaults/compromise, and no cleartext — directly stopping exploitation of insufficiently protected credentials with only a bounded remainder (e.g. non-password authenticators or post-storage exposure vectors outside its scope).
A.5.18's provisioning, review, revocation and activation steps (incl. owner approval, SoD, timely removal on role/termination change) directly stop exploitation of missing authorization checks by ensuring no actor receives or retains rights to resources they should not access; the bounded remainder is that it cannot stop missing-authorization defects inside the enforcement mechanism itself once rights have been granted (e.g. flawed code that ignores the rights table).
By requiring competent outsiders to verify that every function enforces the need-to-know principle, the control lowers the likelihood that missing authorization checks persist undetected.
A.5.8 integrates risk assessment, requirements elicitation and governance into the project lifecycle so that authorization needs can be identified and specified; it does not itself perform or enforce authorization checks, so the missing-authorization weakness 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.