Vulnerability Database

383,371

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2026-59230 — apache / camel

Improper Input Validation

Improper input validation vulnerability in Apache Camel.

This issue affects Apache Camel: from 2.17.0 before 4.14.9, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.4, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.0.

The camel-mail component ships a MimeMultipart data format that can unmarshal a MIME multipart message. When it is configured with headersInline set to true, the unmarshal path copies the MIME headers of the incoming message onto the Camel message: it enumerates every header that is not one of the three standard ones it generates itself - Message-ID, MIME-Version and Content-Type - and calls setHeader for each, applying no HeaderFilterStrategy. The names of those MIME headers come from the message being unmarshalled, so a sender able to influence the message could place a header whose name falls in the Camel-internal namespace and have it set on the Exchange. Camel components read control headers from that namespace to override their configured behaviour - the camel-sql producer, for instance, takes the statement to execute from a Camel header when one is present - so an injected header could redirect what a downstream step in the route does with data the route author never intended it to take from the message. Which sinks are reachable, and what the consequences are, depends entirely on what the route does after the unmarshal step. The camel-mail consumer already applied a header filter strategy on its own inbound path, so this was the parallel inbound path into the same component that the earlier hardening did not cover. The affected copy is reached only when headersInline is enabled, which is not the default: with the default setting the MIME headers are surfaced as attachments rather than as message headers, and are not affected. The behaviour dates back to the introduction of the data format in 2.17.0 and was present on every release line 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, leave headersInline at its default of false where the inline headers are not needed, since the copy is only reached when it is enabled. Where it must stay enabled, strip Camel-internal headers immediately after the unmarshal step, for example with removeHeaders(“Camel*”) placed before any processor or producer that reads control headers, and do not unmarshal MIME content from an untrusted sender into a route that dispatches on header values. As defence in depth, treat the header names of any MIME message arriving from outside the trust boundary as untrusted input.

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: Medium
  • Score: 6.5
  • AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

CWEs:

Frequently Asked Questions

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.