CVE-2026-56140
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-2026-56140 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 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 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-2026-41852
Vulnerability Data
Improper Input Validation vulnerability in Apache Camel AWS SNS component. The camel-aws2-sns component filters Camel headers through a component-specific HeaderFilterStrategy, Sns2HeaderFilterStrategy. Like the sibling Sqs2HeaderFilterStrategy, it originally configured only an outbound filter (setOutFilterPattern, which blocks Camel*, breadcrumbId and org.apache.camel.* headers…
more
from being written out) and did not configure an inbound filter rule. For the related camel-aws2-sqs component this inbound gap was exploitable, because the Sqs2Consumer maps inbound SQS message attributes into the Camel Exchange via HeaderFilterStrategy.applyFilterToExternalHeaders, allowing a message sender to inject Camel control headers (tracked as CVE-2026-46456). camel-aws2-sns, by contrast, is producer-only: Sns2Endpoint does not support consumers (createConsumer throws UnsupportedOperationException, 'You cannot receive messages from this endpoint'), so no externally-supplied message attributes are ever mapped inbound into a Camel Exchange through SNS, and the missing inbound filter rule on Sns2HeaderFilterStrategy was therefore not reachable by an attacker. As part of the same fix (CAMEL-23506), an inbound filter rule (setInFilterStartsWith for the Camel namespace) was added to Sns2HeaderFilterStrategy so that its configuration matches the corrected Sqs2HeaderFilterStrategy and the other sibling strategies. This is a defense-in-depth alignment with no known exploit path in camel-aws2-sns. 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. This is a defense-in-depth hardening change with no known exploit path in camel-aws2-sns, which is producer-only, so no urgent action or workaround is required. Users who want the aligned behaviour can upgrade to version 4.21.0, or to 4.14.8 on the 4.14.x LTS releases stream, or to 4.18.3 on the 4.18.x releases stream, which contain the change. As a general best practice, operators should continue to apply least-privilege IAM permissions on their SNS topics.
- 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.
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.
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