CVE-2026-46457
Apache Camel 4.0.0 – 4.14.8
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-46457 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Apache Camel. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 35th 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-2026-41831
Vulnerability Data
Improper Input Validation vulnerability in Apache Camel NATS component. The camel-nats component maps inbound NATS message headers into the Camel Exchange but defaulted its headerFilterStrategy to a bare new DefaultHeaderFilterStrategy() with no inbound rules configured (NatsConfiguration). With no inFilter, inFilterPattern…
more
or inFilterStartsWith set, DefaultHeaderFilterStrategy.applyFilterToExternalHeaders returns not filtered for every header name, so NatsConsumer copies every NATS message header - including Camel-internal control headers such as CamelHttpUri, CamelFileName or CamelSqlQuery - unmodified onto the Camel message. A client able to publish to the consumed NATS subject 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 query); the injected headers also persist across internal direct, seda and vm hops. The concrete downstream impact depends on which producers the route uses. NATS message headers require NATS 2.2 or later, and the issue is reachable without credentials when the NATS server is configured without authentication (the NATS server default). 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 makes camel-nats default to a dedicated NatsHeaderFilterStrategy 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 NATS messages before they reach any downstream producer (for example removeHeaders('Camel*') and removeHeaders('camel*') at the start of the route), and enable authentication on the NATS server so that only trusted clients can publish to the consumed subject.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
The vulnerability allows unauthenticated remote injection of Camel control headers via the exposed NATS consumer interface, directly enabling 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 external inputs (here NATS headers) before they are accepted into Camel exchanges, blocking injection of control headers such as CamelHttpUri.
Enforces explicit information-flow rules that can filter or drop Camel-internal header names arriving from the NATS subject, preventing them from propagating to downstream producers.
Boundary-protection mechanisms at the NATS ingress point can be configured to inspect and sanitize message headers before they enter the Camel 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.