Improper Input Validation, Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') vulnerability in Apache ActiveMQ Broker, Apache ActiveMQ All, Apache ActiveMQ.
An authenticated attacker may bypass the fix in CVE-2026-34197 by adding a connector using an HTTP Discovery transport via BrokerView.addNetworkConnector or BrokerView.addConnector through Jolokia if the activemq-http module is on the classpath. A malicious HTTP endpoint can return a VM transport through the HTTP URI which will bypass the validation added in CVE-2026-34197. The attacker can then use the VM transport's brokerConfig parameter to load a remote Spring XML application context using ResourceXmlApplicationContext. Because Spring's ResourceXmlApplicationContext instantiates all singleton beans before the BrokerService validates the configuration, arbitrary code execution occurs on the broker's JVM through bean factory methods such as Runtime.exec().
This issue affects Apache ActiveMQ Broker: before 5.19.6, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.5; Apache ActiveMQ All: before 5.19.6, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.5; Apache ActiveMQ: before 5.19.6, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.5.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 5.19.6 or 6.2.5, which fixes the issue.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| apache / activemq | - | 5.19.6 |
| apache / activemq | 6.0.0 | 6.2.5 |
| apache / activemq_broker | - | 5.19.6 |
| apache / activemq_broker | 6.0.0 | 6.2.5 |
org.apache.activemq / apache-activemq
|
- | 5.19.6 |
org.apache.activemq / activemq-all
|
- | 5.19.6 |
org.apache.activemq / activemq-broker
|
- | 5.19.6 |
org.apache.activemq / apache-activemq
|
6.0.0 | 6.2.5 |
org.apache.activemq / activemq-all
|
6.0.0 | 6.2.5 |
org.apache.activemq / activemq-broker
|
6.0.0 | 6.2.5 |
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.