Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-48206 is a medium-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Apache Camel. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 28th 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-2026-41841
Vulnerability Data
Improper Input Validation, Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in Apache Camel JIRA component. The camel-jira producers read their operation parameters - the issue key, project key, transition id, summary, type, assignee, components, watchers, link type, work-log minutes and others…
more
- from Exchange message headers. The header constants defined in JiraConstants (for example ISSUE_KEY = IssueKey, ISSUE_PROJECT_KEY = ProjectKey, ISSUE_TRANSITION_ID = IssueTransitionId, LINK_TYPE = linkType) used plain, non-Camel-prefixed values. 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 jira: producer, any HTTP client could therefore supply these headers and override the values the route intended, driving JIRA operations against the configured JIRA instance with the endpoint's configured service-account credentials - for example deleting or transitioning an arbitrary issue (via IssueKey / IssueTransitionId), creating an issue in a different project (via ProjectKey), modifying issue fields, adding or removing watchers, or logging work. The operations are bounded by what the configured service account is permitted to do. No credentials are required from the attacker 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 JIRA operations via the raw header names must use the CamelJira* names (for example CamelJiraIssueKey) instead of the old values. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, strip the camel-jira control headers from any untrusted ingress before the jira: producer (for example removing the IssueKey, ProjectKey, IssueTransitionId and related headers at the start of the route), and set the required JIRA operation parameters from a trusted source.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Vulnerability allows direct exploitation of a public-facing Camel HTTP consumer route to perform arbitrary unauthorized JIRA operations via header injection.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation of all input parameters (including the unprefixed JIRA operation headers) before they are used to drive producer actions.
Enforces that only explicitly authorized subjects may perform JIRA operations; the CVE is an authorization bypass that lets unauthenticated HTTP headers control those operations.
Prevents untrusted information (HTTP-supplied headers) from flowing into and controlling the privileged JIRA producer Exchange without mediation or filtering.
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.
Enforcing authorization policy and least privilege directly blocks user-controlled key tampering that bypasses access checks.
Logical access controls prevent unauthorized data access that results from missing authorization checks on object references.
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.
Information access restriction explicitly enforces that users may only retrieve data they are authorized to see, directly addressing user-controlled key bypass.
Access control policy directly requires enforcement of authorization rules that prevent unauthorized access via manipulated keys.
Managing access rights includes ensuring users can only access their own records and not bypass authorization by altering identifiers.
Privileged access rights control restricts what data each user may access, mitigating direct object reference attacks.
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.