Skip to main content

hulumi drift CVE-2026-82858

| EUVDEUVD-2026-68446 CRITICAL
Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity (CWE-345)
2026-08-31 VulnCheck GHSA-wpxp-22v5-r9cx
9.3
CVSS 4.0 · Vendor: VulnCheck
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain

  1. Access
    Reach exposed reconciler endpoint
  2. Delivery
    Craft malicious execute plan
  3. Exploit
    Submit untrusted plan as input
  4. Execution
    Provenance check absent, plan trusted
  5. Persist
    Reconciler performs unsafe operations
  6. Impact
    Compromise integrity/confidentiality/availability

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures
ASVS 5.0
V15 - Secure Coding and Architecture Data authenticity verification
Exploitation Conditions

Exploitation requires that the target run @hulumi/drift before 1.3.2 AND that its orphan reconciler be configured/deployed such that it ingests execute plans originating from outside the trust boundary - the vulnerable behavior is acceptance of externally supplied execute plans without provenance validation. Per the CVSS vector (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N), no authentication or user interaction is needed once that ingestion path is reachable over the network. The primary limiting factor is deployment topology: if the reconciler only consumes internally generated plans or its plan-ingestion path is not externally reachable, an attacker cannot supply a malicious plan; conversely, any deployment exposing that path is exploitable by a remote unauthenticated attacker.

Impact

The signals are largely consistent toward high priority: the vendor-supplied CVSS 4.0 vector (AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H) describes remote, unauthenticated, low-complexity exploitation with high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact on the vulnerable system, yielding a 9.3 Critical score. Tempering that, there is no EPSS score provided, no public proof-of-concept identified, and no CISA KEV listing, so exploitation remains theoretical rather than observed at this time. The dominant real-world limiter is exposure: the danger only materializes where the reconciler actually accepts externally reachable execute-plan input, so an operator whose deployment does not expose that ingestion path faces materially lower practical risk than the raw score implies. Given the trivial exploitation profile against exposed instances and the availability of a clean fix, any team running an affected version should treat patching as urgent while verifying whether their reconciler ingestion path is externally reachable.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An attacker crafts a malicious execute plan and submits it to a system running @hulumi/drift before 1.3.2 whose orphan reconciler accepts externally supplied plans. Because the plan's provenance is not validated, the reconciler treats it as trusted and carries out attacker-chosen reconciliation operations, bypassing the intended security checks. No authentication or user interaction is required per the CVSS vector, and no public POC is currently known.

Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Why: CRITICAL severity.
Patch available 0.2% exploitation probability (EPSS)

Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.

Alert me

AnalysisAI

Security-check bypass in @hulumi/drift before 1.3.2 allows remote attackers to submit forged execute plans that the orphan reconciler treats as trusted, enabling unsafe reconciliation operations across all three impact dimensions. The flaw stems from missing provenance validation on externally supplied plans (CWE-345), and the CVSS 4.0 base score is 9.3 (Critical) with a network, no-privilege, no-interaction vector. There is no public exploit identified at time of analysis and it is not listed in CISA KEV, but a fixed release (1.3.2) and a GHSA advisory are available.

RemediationAI

Upgrade @hulumi/drift to 1.3.2 or later (Vendor-released patch: 1.3.2), where execute-plan handling now validates provenance and rejects untrusted plans with regression coverage; update the dependency in package.json/lockfiles and redeploy affected services. If an immediate upgrade is not possible, reduce exposure by restricting or authenticating the path through which execute plans reach the orphan reconciler - for example, only accept plans generated internally and refuse externally submitted plans, and place network controls in front of any endpoint that ingests reconciliation input; the trade-off is that legitimate external plan submission workflows will break, so validate that any integrations relying on external plans are re-pointed to trusted sources. Consult the GHSA advisory (https://github.com/kerberosmansour/hulumi/security/advisories/GHSA-2ffm-hxrq-qqmm) and VulnCheck advisory (https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/hulumi-drift-before-1.3.2-unsafe-execute-plan-acceptance) for authoritative guidance.

Affected VersionsENISA

Drift 0 <1.3.2

Affected Packages

npm @hulumi/drift fix: 1.3.2
euvd drift fix: 1.3.2

Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)

Affects your stack

Affects 2 packages in npm, euvd

Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.

Technical ContextAI · show details

@hulumi/drift is an npm package (cpe:2.3:a:hulumi:drift) that performs state reconciliation - comparing desired versus actual resource state and applying an 'execute plan' to converge them, a pattern common in infrastructure-as-code and drift-detection tooling. The vulnerability is rooted in CWE-345 (Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity): the orphan reconciler component ingested execute plans supplied from outside the trust boundary without verifying their provenance, so attacker-authored plans were accepted as if they had been generated internally. Because an execute plan directs what reconciliation actions are performed, treating an untrusted plan as trusted effectively hands the reconciliation engine an attacker-controlled instruction set, bypassing the security checks that would normally gate those operations.

Know when Hulumi gets its next vulnerability

  • Watch products and get an email when something new is published
  • Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
  • Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources

No credit card · 7-day full trial

Severity by source

Vendor (VulnCheck) PRIMARY 9.3 CRITICAL
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
vuln.today AI 9.8 CRITICAL

Remote unauthenticated acceptance of forged execute plans (CWE-345) with no interaction gives AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N; trusted malicious reconciliation impacts C/I/A high, scope unchanged.

3.1 AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
4.0 AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Primary rating from Vendor (VulnCheck).

CVSS VectorVendor: VulnCheck

Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
Low
Attack Requirements
None
Privileges Required
None
User Interaction
None
Vulnerable system: Confidentiality
High
Vulnerable system: Integrity
High
Vulnerable system: Availability
High
Subsequent system: Confidentiality
None
Subsequent system: Integrity
None
Subsequent system: Availability
None

Lifecycle Timeline

2
CVE Published
Aug 31, 2026 - 10:50 cve.org
CRITICAL 9.3
Patch available
Aug 31, 2026 - 10:16 EUVD

DescriptionCVE.org

@hulumi/drift versions before 1.3.2 accept externally supplied execute plans without sufficient provenance validation, allowing untrusted reconciliation input to be treated as trusted. Attackers can supply malicious execute plans that bypass security checks to perform unsafe reconciliation operations.

Technical POC Analysis

The bug class is CWE-345, Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity.

Full technical POC analysis - root cause, step-by-step exploitation and patch breakdown - is part of the Pro and Business plans.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.2%
Top 92% exploitable
Prevalence
Low
niche npm reconciliation/drift library, limited production footprint
Social Media
2
Sightings
Data Quality
6 sources
Confidence: High

How this decision was reached

The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.

SignalValue
Severity CRITICAL
CISA KEV No
Public POC No
EPSS 0.2%
Patch available Yes
Active threat No
Deciding rule
CRITICAL severity
What every action level means
Emergency Immediate action required. Criteria: CRITICAL + in CISA KEV (actively exploited) without patch, OR CRITICAL + EPSS > 30% without patch, OR CRITICAL + active threat signals without patch.
Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Criteria: in KEV with patch available, OR CRITICAL + public POC, OR HIGH + EPSS > 10%, OR CRITICAL + active threat, OR any CRITICAL severity.
This Week Schedule remediation this week. Criteria: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9). Patch within normal change window.
This Month Plan within 30 days. Criteria: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9), lower exploitation probability. Include in regular patch cycle.
Monitor Track and reassess. Criteria: LOW severity (CVSS 0.1-3.9), minimal exploitation risk. No immediate action needed.

SSVC AssessmentENISA

SSVC Decision· derived
Scheduled
Exploitation
None
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable
Yes
Human Impact· derived
Medium
Technical Impact
Total

Priority Score

46
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +46
PoC: 0
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: 0
Gov advisory: 0

Attack Technique

Authentication bypass attacks exploit flaws in the verification mechanisms that control access to systems and applications.

This site uses cookies essential for authentication and security. No tracking or analytics cookies are used. Privacy Policy