Bypass/Injection vulnerability in Apache Camel.
This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.10.0 before 4.10.2, from 4.8.0 before 4.8.5, from 3.10.0 before 3.22.4.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.10.2 for 4.10.x LTS, 4.8.5 for 4.8.x LTS and 3.22.4 for 3.x releases.
This vulnerability is present in Camel's default incoming header filter, that allows an attacker to include Camel specific headers that for some Camel components can alter the behaviours such as the camel-bean component, or the camel-exec component.
If you have Camel applications that are directly connected to the internet via HTTP, then an attacker could include parameters in the HTTP requests that are sent to the Camel application that get translated into headers.
The headers could be both provided as request parameters for an HTTP methods invocation or as part of the payload of the HTTP methods invocation.
All the known Camel HTTP component such as camel-servlet, camel-jetty, camel-undertow, camel-platform-http, and camel-netty-http would be vulnerable out of the box.
This CVE is related to the CVE-2025-27636: while they have the same root cause and are fixed with the same fix, CVE-2025-27636 was assumed to only be exploitable if an attacker could add malicious HTTP headers, while we have now determined that it is also exploitable via HTTP parameters. Like in CVE-2025-27636, exploitation is only possible if the Camel route uses particular vulnerable components.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
org.apache.camel / camel-support
|
3.10.0 | 3.22.4 |
org.apache.camel / camel-support
|
4.9.0 | 4.10.2 |
org.apache.camel / camel-support
|
4.0.0-M1 | 4.8.5 |
| apache / camel | 3.10.0 | 3.22.4 |
| apache / camel | 4.10.0 | 4.10.2 |
| apache / camel | 4.8.0 | 4.8.5 |
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.