Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-48203

SSRF in Apache Camel 4.0.0 – 4.14.8

Published
06 July 2026
Modified
08 July 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 9.1
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0037 30th percentile
Risk Priority 66 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-48203 is a critical-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Apache Camel. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 30th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection'), Improper Input Validation, Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Apache Camel Solr component. The camel-solr producer copies Exchange message headers whose names begin with the SolrParam. prefix…

more

into the parameters of the Solr request, and headers whose names begin with the SolrField. prefix into the fields of the indexed Solr document. The prefix constants (SolrConstants.HEADER_PARAM_PREFIX / HEADER_FIELD_PREFIX) were the plain strings SolrParam. / SolrField.. Because these names do not start with the Camel / camel prefix, HttpHeaderFilterStrategy - which blocks only the Camel header namespace on the HTTP boundary - let them pass from an inbound HTTP request straight into the Exchange. In a route that bridges an HTTP consumer (for example platform-http) into a solr: producer, any HTTP client could therefore set SolrParam.* headers to inject arbitrary Solr request parameters - including shards or stream.url, which cause the Solr server to issue server-side requests to an attacker-chosen URL (server-side request forgery, for example to an internal service or a cloud metadata endpoint), or qt to reach administrative request handlers - and set SolrField.* headers to inject arbitrary fields into indexed documents. No credentials are required when the bridging consumer is unauthenticated. 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. After upgrading, routes that set Solr parameters or fields via the raw header prefixes must use CamelSolrParam. / CamelSolrField. instead of SolrParam. / SolrField.. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, strip the SolrParam.* and SolrField.* headers from any untrusted ingress before the solr: producer, and set the required Solr parameters and fields from a trusted source in the route.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1221 Template Injection Stealth
Adversaries may create or modify references in user document templates to conceal malicious code or force authentication attempts.
T1659 Content Injection Initial Access
Adversaries may gain access and continuously communicate with victims by injecting malicious content into systems through online network traffic.
T1674 Input Injection Execution
Adversaries may simulate keystrokes on a victim’s computer by various means to perform any type of action on behalf of the user, such as launching the command interpreter using keyboard shortcuts, typing an inline script to be executed,…
T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-48205Same product: Apache Camel
CVE-2026-55993Same product: Apache Camel
CVE-2026-46726Same product: Apache Camel
CVE-2026-55994Same product: Apache Camel
CVE-2020-13942Same vendor: Apache
CVE-2024-21742Same vendor: Apache
CVE-2023-33234Same vendor: Apache
CVE-2023-51653Same vendor: Apache
CVE-2023-43667Same vendor: Apache
CVE-2023-25141Same vendor: Apache

Affected Assets

apache
camel
4.0.0 — 4.14.8 · 4.15.0 — 4.18.3 · 4.19.0 — 4.21.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.2.1
  • V1.2.3
  • V1.2.5
  • V1.2.8

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.

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.

Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require and enforce input validation during development.

DE.CM-09 partial match
prevents

Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.

PR.IR-01 partial match
prevents

Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.

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.

finds

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.

prevents

Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.

A.8.15 Logging partial match
finds

Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.

finds

Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.

prevents

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.

prevents

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.

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` (authoritative 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

References