FKIE_CVE-2026-25903

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-02-17 10:15 - Updated: 2026-06-17 10:25
Severity
6.6 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Summary
Apache NiFi 1.1.0 through 2.7.2 are missing authorization when updating configuration properties on extension components that have specific Required Permissions based on the Restricted annotation. The Restricted annotation indicates additional privileges required to add the annotated component to the flow configuration, but framework authorization did not check restricted status when updating a component previously added. The missing authorization requires a more privileged user to add a restricted component to the flow configuration, but permits a less privileged user to make property configuration changes. Apache NiFi installations that do not implement different levels of authorization for Restricted components are not subject to this vulnerability because the framework enforces write permissions as the security boundary. Upgrading to Apache NiFi 2.8.0 is the recommended mitigation.
References
security@apache.orghttps://lists.apache.org/thread/jf6bkt9sk6xvshy8xyxv3vtlxd340345Mailing List, Vendor Advisory
af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/02/16/1Mailing List, Third Party Advisory
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
apache nifi *
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "affectedData": [
        {
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "packageName": "org.apache.nifi:nifi-web-api",
          "product": "Apache NiFi",
          "vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "2.8.0",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "1.1.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": "security@apache.org"
    }
  ],
  "configurations": [
    {
      "nodes": [
        {
          "cpeMatch": [
            {
              "criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:apache:nifi:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
              "matchCriteriaId": "B9B62893-9A7C-4499-8515-12D3617D09C4",
              "versionEndExcluding": "2.8.0",
              "versionStartIncluding": "1.1.0",
              "vulnerable": true
            }
          ],
          "negate": false,
          "operator": "OR"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "Apache NiFi 1.1.0 through 2.7.2 are missing authorization when updating configuration properties on extension components that have specific Required Permissions based on the Restricted annotation. The Restricted annotation indicates additional privileges required to add the annotated component to the flow configuration, but framework authorization did not check restricted status when updating a component previously added. The missing authorization requires a more privileged user to add a restricted component to the flow configuration, but permits a less privileged user to make property configuration changes. Apache NiFi installations that do not implement different levels of authorization for Restricted components are not subject to this vulnerability because the framework enforces write permissions as the security boundary. Upgrading to Apache NiFi 2.8.0 is the recommended mitigation."
    },
    {
      "lang": "es",
      "value": "Apache NiFi 1.1.0 hasta 2.7.2 carecen de autorizaci\u00f3n al actualizar propiedades de configuraci\u00f3n en componentes de extensi\u00f3n que tienen Permisos Requeridos espec\u00edficos basados en la anotaci\u00f3n Restricted. La anotaci\u00f3n Restricted indica privilegios adicionales requeridos para a\u00f1adir el componente anotado a la configuraci\u00f3n del flujo, pero la autorizaci\u00f3n del framework no verific\u00f3 el estado restringido al actualizar un componente a\u00f1adido previamente. La autorizaci\u00f3n faltante requiere que un usuario m\u00e1s privilegiado a\u00f1ada un componente restringido a la configuraci\u00f3n del flujo, pero permite a un usuario menos privilegiado realizar cambios en la configuraci\u00f3n de propiedades. Las instalaciones de Apache NiFi que no implementan diferentes niveles de autorizaci\u00f3n para componentes Restricted no est\u00e1n sujetas a esta vulnerabilidad porque el framework impone permisos de escritura como el l\u00edmite de seguridad. Actualizar a Apache NiFi 2.8.0 es la mitigaci\u00f3n recomendada."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2026-25903",
  "lastModified": "2026-06-17T10:25:24.670",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV31": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "HIGH",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
          "baseScore": 6.6,
          "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
          "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
          "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
          "privilegesRequired": "HIGH",
          "scope": "UNCHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 0.7,
        "impactScore": 5.9,
        "source": "nvd@nist.gov",
        "type": "Primary"
      }
    ],
    "cvssMetricV40": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "Automatable": "YES",
          "Recovery": "IRRECOVERABLE",
          "Safety": "PRESENT",
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "baseScore": 8.7,
          "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
          "confidentialityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "integrityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedAttackComplexity": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedAttackRequirements": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedAttackVector": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedPrivilegesRequired": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedSubIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedUserInteraction": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "privilegesRequired": "HIGH",
          "providerUrgency": "AMBER",
          "subAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
          "subConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
          "subIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
          "userInteraction": "ACTIVE",
          "valueDensity": "CONCENTRATED",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:P/AU:Y/R:I/V:C/RE:M/U:Amber",
          "version": "4.0",
          "vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
          "vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
          "vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
          "vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "MODERATE"
        },
        "source": "security@apache.org",
        "type": "Secondary"
      }
    ],
    "ssvcV203": [
      {
        "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
        "ssvcData": {
          "id": "CVE-2026-25903",
          "options": [
            {
              "exploitation": "none"
            },
            {
              "automatable": "no"
            },
            {
              "technicalImpact": "total"
            }
          ],
          "role": "CISA Coordinator",
          "timestamp": "2026-02-17T14:29:01.783559Z",
          "version": "2.0.3"
        }
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2026-02-17T10:15:57.950",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "security@apache.org",
      "tags": [
        "Mailing List",
        "Vendor Advisory"
      ],
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/jf6bkt9sk6xvshy8xyxv3vtlxd340345"
    },
    {
      "source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
      "tags": [
        "Mailing List",
        "Third Party Advisory"
      ],
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/02/16/1"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "security@apache.org",
  "vulnStatus": "Analyzed",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-862"
        }
      ],
      "source": "security@apache.org",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Loading timeline…




    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.