Deserialization attack in Apache InLong prior to version 1.3.0 allows RCE via JDBC
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 36/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 2.6% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 85.5% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: org.apache.inlong:inlong-common (Maven) 1.3.0.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to org.apache.inlong:inlong-common (Maven) 1.3.0 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
In versions of Apache InLong prior to 1.3.0, an attacker with sufficient privileges to specify MySQL JDBC connection URL parameters and to write arbitrary data to the MySQL database, could cause this data to be deserialized by Apache InLong, potentially leading to Remote Code Execution on the Apache InLong server. Users are advised to upgrade to Apache InLong 1.3.0 or newer.
- Published
- Sep 20, 2022
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 2.6% · 85th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-502
Report tools
Action score
36
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 35 / 40 · 8.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 1 / 30 · 2.6%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| apache | inlong | cpe:2.3:a:apache:inlong |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- apache inlongbefore 1.3.0
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (apache). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Apache Software Foundation Apache InLong
- Apache InLong and later · before 1.3.0affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maven | org.apache.inlong:inlong-common | before 1.3.0 | 1.3.0 |
Same product
apache: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-63039Apache InLong: SQL Injection via Unvalidated MyBatis Dollar-Sign Interpolation in AuditAlertRuleService39Monitor
- CVE-2026-63038Apache InLong: SQL Injection via String Concatenation Vulnerability Report39Monitor
- CVE-2026-63037Apache InLong: Unauthenticated SQL injection in Manager OpenAPI audit alert rule list endpoint39Monitor
- CVE-2025-27531Apache InLong: An arbitrary file read vulnerability for JDBC39Monitor
- CVE-2024-36268Apache InLong TubeMQ Client: Remote Code Execution vulnerability39Monitor
- CVE-2024-26579Apache Inlong JDBC Vulnerability39Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Maven:org.apache.inlong:inlong-common | 1.3.0 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
- 4ra1nChaitin Tech
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-502 · Deserialization of Untrusted DataCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Root cause
Data received over the network is deserialized into the language’s native object format without verifying its source. Code paths inside the object can be triggered during deserialization.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-502 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
payload = sock.recv(65536)job = pickle.loads(payload)Fixed
payload = sock.recv(65536)if not hmac.compare_digest(sign(payload), header_sig): raise PermissionError("invalid signature")job = JobSchema.validate(json.loads(payload))Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.