CVE-2026-33453
Apache Camel 4.14.0 – 4.14.5
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-33453 is a critical-severity Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes (CWE-915) vulnerability in Apache Camel. Its CVSS base score is 10.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 7% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-6 (Least Privilege) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
Apache Camel's camel-coap component contains an Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes vulnerability (CWE-915) that permits arbitrary Camel message header injection. The flaw exists because CamelCoapResource.handleRequest() copies every entry from OptionSet.getUriQuery() into the Exchange In headers via setHeader() without invoking any HeaderFilterStrategy; the component neither extends DefaultHeaderFilterStrategyEndpoint nor implements HeaderFilterStrategyComponent. Affected releases are Apache Camel 4.14.0–4.14.5, 4.18.0 before 4.18.1, and 4.19.0.
An unauthenticated remote attacker who can reach the CoAP UDP listener (default port 5683) can inject headers prefixed with Camel* by sending a single crafted CoAP request containing URI query parameters. When the route subsequently delivers the exchange to a header-sensitive producer such as camel-exec, camel-sql, camel-bean or template components, the injected headers override endpoint configuration; with camel-exec this results in arbitrary operating-system command execution under the Camel process privileges, with command output returned directly in the CoAP response.
The Apache Camel security advisory and the oss-security posting both state that the issue is resolved in versions 4.18.1 and 4.19.0; users are advised to upgrade. The reported CVSS score is 10.0 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H). The associated EPSS score remains flat at 0.0744 with no material increase after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-25816
Vulnerability Data
Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes vulnerability in Apache Camel Camel-Coap component. Apache Camel's camel-coap component is vulnerable to Camel message header injection, leading to remote code execution when routes forward CoAP requests to header-sensitive producers (e.g. camel-exec) The…
more
camel-coap component maps incoming CoAP request URI query parameters directly into Camel Exchange In message headers without applying any HeaderFilterStrategy. Specifically, CamelCoapResource.handleRequest() iterates over OptionSet.getUriQuery() and calls camelExchange.getIn().setHeader(...) for every query parameter. CoAPEndpoint extends DefaultEndpoint rather than DefaultHeaderFilterStrategyEndpoint, and CoAPComponent does not implement HeaderFilterStrategyComponent; the component contains no references to HeaderFilterStrategy at all. As a result, an unauthenticated attacker who can send a single CoAP UDP packet to a Camel route consuming from coap:// can inject arbitrary Camel internal headers (those prefixed with Camel*) into the Exchange. When the route delivers the message to a header-sensitive producer such as camel-exec, camel-sql, camel-bean, camel-file, or template components (camel-freemarker, camel-velocity), the injected headers can alter the producer's behavior. In the case of camel-exec, the CamelExecCommandExecutable and CamelExecCommandArgs headers override the executable and arguments configured on the endpoint, resulting in arbitrary OS command execution under the privileges of the Camel process. The producer's output is written back to the Exchange body and returned in the CoAP response payload by CamelCoapResource, giving the attacker an interactive RCE channel without any need for out-of-band exfiltration. Exploitation prerequisites are minimal: a single unauthenticated UDP datagram to the CoAP port (default 5683). CoAP (RFC 7252) has no built-in authentication, and DTLS is optional and disabled by default. Because the protocol is UDP-based, HTTP-layer WAF/IDS controls do not apply. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.14.0 through 4.14.5, from 4.18.0 before 4.18.1, 4.19.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.18.1 or 4.19.0, fixing the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforces authorizations so that only permitted attributes may be modified on an object.
Limits the set of modifiable attributes a subject is authorized to touch.
Validates incoming attribute names and values so that only explicitly allowed fields are accepted for update.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require allow-listing of mutable object attributes and input validation to block mass-assignment flaws.
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.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe dynamic attribute assignment and require property allow-lists.
Security testing can detect mass-assignment flaws but does not itself prevent them at runtime.
Secure development lifecycle requires input validation and object-property whitelisting that directly mitigates mass-assignment risks.
Application security requirements include explicit rules for allowable object attributes and safe deserialization.
Secure architecture principles mandate strict control over dynamic object modification and attribute binding.
Information access restriction limits who can modify objects but does not address which attributes may be changed.