CVE-2026-71300
Apache Camel 4.0.0 – 4.14.9
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-71300 is a critical-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Apache Camel. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 47% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-2026-64961
Vulnerability Data
Improper input validation vulnerability in Apache Camel Atmosphere Websocket component. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.0.0 before 4.14.9, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.4, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.0. The camel-atmosphere-websocket producer selects which connected WebSocket peers a message is delivered to…
more
through Exchange headers, and the string values of those headers sat outside the Camel namespace: websocket.connectionKey and websocket.connectionKey.list, along with websocket.sendToAll, websocket.eventType and websocket.errorType. WebsocketEndpoint extends ServletEndpoint and so inherits HttpHeaderFilterStrategy, which filters only the Camel and camel prefixes; the dotted names therefore fell outside the filtered namespace and were admitted in both directions by every HTTP-family consumer. In a route bridging an HTTP consumer into an atmosphere-websocket producer, an external sender could supply the list header and take over the producer's dispatch decision. WebsocketProducer.process tests the list header before the single-key header, so an injected value discarded the recipient the route had selected: a notification intended for one connected client could be suppressed, or delivered instead to a different client whose connection key the sender knows. The header need not be a query parameter and need not be supplied as a list literally - Camel's HTTP binding promotes a repeated header name, and a bracketed value, to a List when mapping onto the Exchange - so an ordinary inbound HTTP header is sufficient to reach the list-valued branch. This is distinct from CVE-2026-55993, which concerns the consumer-side query-parameter path in the same component. The behaviour dates back to the introduction of these constants, first released in 2.17.0, and was unchanged until this fix. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.22.0, which fixes the issue. If users are on the 4.14.x LTS releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.14.9. If users are on the 4.18.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.18.4. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, strip the dispatch headers at the trust boundary before the producer, for example with removeHeaders(“websocket.*”) placed between the HTTP consumer and the atmosphere-websocket producer. Note that the fix renames the header string values into the Camel namespace, which is a breaking change for routes that set them by literal string: routes referencing the WebsocketConstants fields symbolically are unaffected, and the change is documented in the upgrade guides. As defence in depth, do not bridge an untrusted HTTP consumer directly into a WebSocket producer whose dispatch is header-driven without stripping the dispatch namespace first.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
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 (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.
A.8.25 mandates security requirements, secure coding guidelines, checkpoints, testing (incl. code scans) and developer training in the SDLC, which reaches a slice of input validation defects but leaves the majority (incomplete enforcement, second-order inputs, parser differentials, post-validation canonicalization) unaddressed as in the SA-3 and A.8.28 anchors.
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.
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.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-20, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.