Improper input validation vulnerability in Apache Camel Undertow component.
CVE-2026-78329 is a critical-severity improper input validation vulnerability in Apache Camel from Apache, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. The record lists versions 4.14.9, 4.18.4, 4.22.0 as the first without the flaw, so updating Apache Camel to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.62% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 50% of scored CVEs.
Critical severity: a successful attack would have severe impact.
What to do
- Update Apache Camel to 4.14.9 or 4.18.4 or 4.22.0, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
- Update Camel to 4.14.9 or 4.18.4 or 4.22.0, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
- Read the advisory on camel.apache.org for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apache | Apache Camel | 4.11.0 up to, but not including, 4.14.9; 4.15.0 up to, but not including, 4.18.4; 4.19.0 up to, but not including, 4.22.0 | 4.14.9, 4.18.4, 4.22.0 |
| Apache | Camel | 4.11.0 up to, but not including, 4.14.9; 4.15.0 up to, but not including, 4.18.4; 4.19.0 up to, but not including, 4.22.0 | 4.14.9, 4.18.4, 4.22.0 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by CISA (ADP).
Official description
Improper input validation vulnerability in Apache Camel Undertow component. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.11.0 before 4.14.9, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.4, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.0. UndertowEndpoint defaulted its headerFilterStrategy field to the base HttpHeaderFilterStrategy and pushed that instance into the UndertowHttpBinding it creates lazily, overwriting the UndertowHeaderFilterStrategy that DefaultUndertowHttpBinding installs in its own constructor. Unless a deployment supplied a custom binding or an explicit headerFilterStrategy, the undertow-specific filtering therefore never executed on endpoint-configured routes: the strategy object was constructed and immediately replaced before it could be consulted. The consequence is that the legacy websocket. Exchange-header prefix was not filtered at the undertow transport boundary in either direction, so an undertow HTTP consumer mapped inbound wire headers of that form onto the Exchange, where an undertow WebSocket producer reads them as dispatch directives and can be made to deliver to a peer other than the one the route selected; and header names that undertow itself does not accept were mapped onto the Exchange rather than being skipped. Rest DSL consumers were never affected, because UndertowComponent assigns UndertowRestHeaderFilterStrategy explicitly, which extends the undertow strategy. This is not a regression of CVE-2025-30177: the base HttpHeaderFilterStrategy configures the inbound Camel-prefix filter itself, so the protection introduced by that advisory continued to work through the base class and was never lost. What the change did was leave the undertow strategy orphaned on the endpoint path, with the effect that two subsequent corrections written into it - one skipping header names undertow rejects, one filtering the legacy websocket. prefix in both directions - were applied to a class the endpoint no longer used and never took effect in the releases that shipped them. 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, configure the strategy explicitly rather than relying on the default, for example by binding an UndertowHeaderFilterStrategy in the registry and referencing it on the endpoint as undertow:http://0.0.0.0:8080/foo?headerFilterStrategy=#myStrategy, and additionally strip the dispatch headers at the trust boundary with removeHeaders(“websocket.*”). Note a residual limitation that upgrading does not remove: the undertow component deliberately keeps the websocket. values as part of its externally visible API contract, and UndertowProducer reads them with in.getHeader, which does not consult a HeaderFilterStrategy at all. The restored filtering is therefore defence in depth at the undertow transport boundary only. A route that carries an untrusted message from a non-undertow consumer into an undertow producer is not protected by this fix and must strip those headers itself.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
- Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: yes, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Advisories
- camel.apache.org/security/CVE-2026-78329.htmlMailing List
Other vulnerabilities in Apache Camel
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.2 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.6 Critical severity
- 9.1 Critical severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.3 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.