LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2022-33681: Improper Hostname Verification in Java Client and Proxy can expose authentication data via MITM

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.

MediumCVSS 5.9Not KEV-listedUpdated
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysismoderate

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

CVE-2022-33681 can leak Apache Pulsar client authentication data during TLS connection setup before hostname verification completes. The attack requires a man-in-the-middle position, but exposed tokens or passwords could let an attacker impersonate a client elsewhere.

Executive priority

Treat as moderate priority. It is not broadly exploitable from the internet by default, but credential exposure can be material for messaging platforms carrying business data.

Technical view

Apache Pulsar Java Client and Pulsar Proxy delay TLS hostname verification until after authentication data is sent. A cryptographically valid certificate for another host can trigger credential exposure before the client closes the mismatched connection.

Likely exposure

Exposure is limited to affected Apache Pulsar Java Client and Proxy versions using TLS, especially with token or username/password authentication.

Exploitation context

The bundle does not show active exploitation or KEV listing. Exploitation requires control of a network path between client, proxy, or broker and active traffic manipulation.

Researcher notes

Focus validation on dependency versions, TLS paths, proxy-to-broker connections, and authentication method. The source says the connection closes after hostname mismatch, so reusable credentials drive impact.

Mitigation direction

  • Inventory Pulsar Java Client and Proxy versions across applications and infrastructure.
  • Update affected components according to Apache advisory and current vendor guidance.
  • Prioritize systems using token or username/password authentication.
  • Rotate Pulsar credentials if network interception is plausible.
  • Review TLS and network controls between clients, proxies, and brokers.

Validation and detection

  • Check for Pulsar Java Client versions 2.7.0-2.7.4, 2.8.0-2.8.3, 2.9.0-2.9.2, 2.10.0, or 2.6.4 and earlier.
  • Identify Pulsar Proxy deployments connecting to brokers over TLS.
  • Confirm whether token or username/password authentication is used.
  • Review logs for unexpected TLS hostname mismatch failures.
  • Confirm vendor-recommended updated versions are deployed.
Prepared
Confidence
high
Sources
3

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cwe · low confidence lookup

CWE-295: Exact CWE lookup

Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
description · low confidence lookup

Credential and access behavior lookup

The CVE wording references authentication or credential exposure, so valid-account and credential-access review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2022-33681 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
Medium
CVSS
5.9 (3.1)
Known Exploited
No
Published

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

1CVSS vectors
0Timeline events
0ADP providers
2Source links

CVSS vector scores

1 official score

We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.

ScoreVersionSeverityVectorExploitImpactSource
5.9CVSS 3.1MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N2.23.6Primary CVE score

Vulnerability scoring details

Base CVSS 3.1 score

5.9Medium
CVSS 3.1 vector shape for CVE-2022-33681Attack VectorAttack ComplexityPrivileges RequiredUser InteractionScopeConfidentiality ImpactIntegrity ImpactAvailability Impact

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector
NetworkAdjacentLocalPhysical
Attack Complexity
LowHigh
Privileges Required
NoneLowHigh
User Interaction
NoneRequired
Scope
ChangedUnchanged
Confidentiality Impact
HighLowNone
Integrity Impact
HighLowNone
Availability Impact
HighLowNone

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
Apache Software FoundationApache Pulsar2.10.0, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.6 and earlierListed
Weakness

CWE details

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.

CWE-295 · source CWE mapping

Improper Certificate Validation

Improper Certificate Validation represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.