CVE-2026-48204
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-2026-48204 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 37th 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-3 (Access 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-2026-41839
Vulnerability Data
Improper Input Validation, Improper Access Control vulnerability in Apache Camel in Camel Mongodb Gridfs component. The camel-mongodb-gridfs producer selects the GridFS operation to perform from the gridfs.operation Exchange header when the endpoint's operation parameter is not set - which is…
more
the default. The control-header constants (GridFsConstants.GRIDFS_OPERATION, GRIDFS_OBJECT_ID, GRIDFS_METADATA, GRIDFS_CHUNKSIZE, GRIDFS_FILE_ID_PRODUCED) were the plain strings gridfs.operation, gridfs.objectid, gridfs.metadata, gridfs.chunksize and gridfs.fileid. 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 mongodb-gridfs: producer with no explicit operation, any HTTP client could therefore set the gridfs.operation header to override the route's intended operation - switching, for example, a file upload to remove (deleting a file identified by the attacker-supplied gridfs.objectid), listAll (enumerating every file in the bucket) or findOne (reading a file) - and supply a gridfs.metadata value that is parsed as a MongoDB document, enabling NoSQL operator injection. 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 drive GridFS operations or metadata via the raw header names must use CamelGridFsOperation / CamelGridFsObjectId / CamelGridFsMetadata / CamelGridFsChunkSize / CamelGridFsFileId instead of the gridfs.* names. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, set an explicit operation on the mongodb-gridfs: endpoint so the operation is not taken from a header, and strip the gridfs.* headers from any untrusted ingress before the producer.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Vulnerability allows unauthenticated HTTP clients to inject gridfs.* headers that control backend GridFS operations (remove, listAll, findOne, metadata injection) on routes bridging an HTTP consumer to a mongodb-gridfs producer; this is direct exploitation of a public-facing application due to missing header filtering and lack of explicit operation enforcement.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces that only the intended GridFS operation (from endpoint config) is executed rather than an attacker-supplied header value.
Requires validation of inbound HTTP headers (gridfs.operation, gridfs.objectid, etc.) before they are allowed to select or parameterize a GridFS action.
Enforces information-flow rules at the HTTP-to-Exchange boundary so that non-Camel headers cannot alter producer behavior.
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.AA-05 directly enforces policy-based access management and least privilege, eliminating most improper-access-control defects, yet CWE-284 also covers implementation flaws and design gaps outside a single management control.
Hardened baselines and deviation monitoring directly eliminate most configuration-induced access-control defects, yet CWE-284 also encompasses code-level and design flaws outside the scope of configuration management alone.
Secure SDLC practices directly require and enforce input validation during development.
PR.AA-01 supplies managed identities/credentials that support but do not implement access-control decisions, so it only partially prevents CWE-284 in either direction.
Authentication directly blocks unauthenticated actors (partial prevention of CWE-284) but leaves authorization logic, policy enforcement, and role checks untouched, so the control neither eliminates nor fully mitigates the broader weakness.
PR.DS-01 encryption mitigates impact of failed access checks on stored data but neither implements nor constrains access-control logic itself.
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.
Defining and enforcing explicit access rights and restrictions for each entity directly stops the assignment of permissions that exceed what is required, eliminating the root condition that allows improper access control.
Formal authorization, role-based provisioning, and timely revocation of access rights directly stop the creation of accounts or permissions that exceed what the business actually needs.
By enforcing explicit rules on which identities or groups may perform read, write, delete or execute operations and by denying anonymous access to sensitive data, the control directly stops the creation of overly permissive or missing access-control checks.
Requiring one-to-one mapping of identities to entities and timely removal of unused identities directly stops attackers from leveraging stale or shared accounts to bypass access restrictions.
By explicitly transferring security roles and responsibilities when personnel change jobs or leave, the control reduces the chance that former employees retain access rights they no longer need, thereby limiting improper access control.
Physical entry controls enforce explicit authorization and authentication at every access point, directly stopping unauthorized actors from reaching information-processing assets.