CVE-2026-46454
Apache Camel 4.0.0 – 4.14.8
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-46454 is a critical-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Apache Camel. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 50th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) 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-2026-41828
Vulnerability Data
Improper Input Validation vulnerability in Apache Camel Cometd Component. The camel-cometd component maps inbound Bayeux (CometD) message headers into the Camel Exchange without applying a HeaderFilterStrategy. CometdBinding.populateExchangeFromMessage copies the entire ext.CamelHeaders map supplied by the CometD client directly onto the…
more
Camel message (message.setHeaders), so any header name - including Camel-internal control headers such as CamelHttpUri, CamelFileName or CamelJmsDestinationName - is accepted unmodified. Because a CometdComponent installs no Bayeux SecurityPolicy by default, any client that can complete the Bayeux handshake against the CometD endpoint can publish such a message without authentication. An attacker can therefore inject arbitrary Camel control headers that influence the behaviour of downstream producers in the route (for example redirecting an HTTP producer, changing a file name, or overriding a JMS destination); the injected headers also persist across internal direct, seda and vm hops. The concrete downstream impact depends on which producers the route uses. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.0.0 before 4.14.8, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.3, from 4.19.0 before 4.21.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.21.0, which fixes the issue. If users are on the 4.14.x LTS releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.14.8. If users are on the 4.18.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.18.3. The fix implements a HeaderFilterStrategy in the camel-cometd binding (a long-standing TODO in the code) that filters the Camel header namespace case-insensitively on inbound mapping, so client-supplied Camel* / camel* headers are no longer copied into the Exchange. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, strip the Camel control headers from inbound CometD messages before they reach any downstream producer (for example removeHeaders('Camel*') and removeHeaders('camel*') at the start of the route), and install an explicit Bayeux SecurityPolicy on the CometdComponent so that only authenticated clients can publish.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
The CVE describes unauthenticated header injection into a publicly exposed CometD endpoint (Apache Camel component) that directly enables exploitation of a public-facing application to manipulate downstream route behavior.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation of all inbound headers from the CometD/Bayeux client before they are copied into Camel Exchanges, blocking injection of control headers such as CamelHttpUri.
Enforces information-flow rules that filter or drop untrusted Camel-internal headers at the CometD component boundary so they cannot influence downstream producers or cross seda/vm hops.
Requires boundary-protection mechanisms (e.g., Bayeux SecurityPolicy plus header filtering) at the CometD endpoint to restrict what message metadata is allowed to enter the integration route.
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 and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Regular automated validation of system software and data content, combined with scanning of all inbound files, enforces input validation at the boundary before untrusted content is processed.