CVE-2026-46456
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:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-46456 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 Invalid Code Signature (T1036.001); ranked in the top 45% 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-2026-41830
Vulnerability Data
Improper Input Validation vulnerability in Apache Camel AWS2-SQS Component. The camel-aws2-sqs component map inbound message attributes into the Camel Exchange through a component-specific HeaderFilterStrategy. Sqs2HeaderFilterStrategy configured only an outbound filter (setOutFilterPattern, which blocks Camel*, breadcrumbId and org.apache.camel.* headers being written…
more
to the broker) but did not configure an inbound filter. As a result, when Sqs2Consumer copies each SQS MessageAttribute into the Exchange via HeaderFilterStrategy.applyFilterToExternalHeaders, DefaultHeaderFilterStrategy applied no inbound rule and treated every header name as not filtered - including Camel-internal control headers such as CamelHttpUri, CamelFileName or CamelSqlQuery - copying them unmodified onto the Camel message. Any principal able to send messages to the consumed SQS queue (for example a cross-account sender or a lower-privileged in-account component holding sqs:SendMessage) could therefore set 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 query); 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 adds an inbound HeaderFilterStrategy rule to Sqs2HeaderFilterStrategy that filters the Camel header namespace case-insensitively on inbound mapping, so sender-supplied Camel* / camel* headers are no longer copied into the Exchange. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, strip the Camel control headers from inbound messages before they reach any downstream producer (for example removeHeaders('Camel*') and removeHeaders('camel*') at the start of the route), and restrict who may send to the consumed SQS queue by applying least-privilege sqs:SendMessage permissions on the queue resource policy.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.
SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
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.
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.
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.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (higher-evidence rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20