CVE-2026-40047
Apache Camel 4.15.0 – 4.18.3
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-40047 is a critical-severity Argument Injection (CWE-88) vulnerability in Apache Camel. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 24% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-41823
Vulnerability Data
Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') vulnerability in Apache Camel Docling component. The camel-docling component invokes the external `docling` command-line tool by assembling an argument list in DoclingProducer and executing it through java.lang.ProcessBuilder. Custom CLI arguments…
more
supplied through the `CamelDoclingCustomArguments` exchange header (a List<String>) were appended to that argument list with insufficient validation: the original implementation relied on a denylist of disallowed flags and only rejected path values that contained a literal `../` sequence. As a result, a Camel route that forwards externally-influenced data into the `CamelDoclingCustomArguments` header (or into the path-bearing headers used to build the invocation) could cause the producer to pass unrecognized or unintended `docling` CLI flags to the subprocess, and could supply path-like argument values that resolved outside the intended directory through traversal sequences not caught by the literal `../` check. Because Camel itself builds the `docling` invocation from these values, the component is responsible for constraining them, and the weak validation allowed CLI-argument injection and directory traversal in the arguments passed to the external tool. The invocation uses the list-based form of ProcessBuilder, so a shell does not interpret the argument values; OS command injection through shell metacharacters was not possible, and the metacharacter rejection added by the fix is defense-in-depth. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.15.0 before 4.18.3. Users are recommended to upgrade to a release that contains the CAMEL-23212 fix. On the mainline the fix is included from Apache Camel 4.19.0 (and later releases such as 4.20.0). For users on the 4.18.x LTS releases stream, upgrade to 4.18.3. The fix replaces the denylist with a strict allowlist of recognized `docling` CLI flags (rejecting any unrecognized flag, and rejecting producer-managed flags such as the output-directory flags), defensively rejects shell metacharacters in argument values, and normalizes path-like values with Path.normalize() before validating them so that traversal sequences which bypass a literal `../` check are detected. As defence in depth, route authors should avoid mapping untrusted message content into the `CamelDoclingCustomArguments` header and the path-bearing headers, and should strip Camel-internal headers from messages that arrive from untrusted producers.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing can discover argument-injection flaws in command-construction code but does not stop their introduction.
Input validation directly stops construction of command strings containing unneutralized delimiters or injected arguments.
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 proper input validation and command construction to prevent argument injection.
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.
Security testing can detect argument injection but does not prevent it at the source.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent argument injection.
Application security requirements include explicit rules for safe command-line argument handling and escaping.
Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe command invocation patterns and favor safer APIs.
Secure coding standards explicitly require proper neutralization of command arguments, directly eliminating CWE-88.
Change management can catch unsafe command patterns during reviews but is not a direct mitigation.