Apache Camel: Camel Message Header Injection via Improper Filtering
Not confirmed exploited. 2 of 8 rule sources name it; Cloudflare blocks by default.
Bypass/Injection vulnerability in Apache Camel components under particular conditions. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.10.0 through <= 4.10.1, from 4.8.0 through <= 4.8.4, from 3.10.0 through <= 3.22.3. Users are recommended to… More
Bypass/Injection vulnerability in Apache Camel components under particular conditions. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.10.0 through <= 4.10.1, from 4.8.0 through <= 4.8.4, from 3.10.0 through <= 3.22.3. 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, to call another method on the bean, than was coded in the application. In the camel-jms component, then a malicious header can be used to send the message to another queue (on the same broker) than was coded in the application. This could also be seen by using the camel-exec component The attacker would need to inject custom headers, such as HTTP protocols. So if you have Camel applications that are directly connected to the internet via HTTP, then an attacker could include malicious HTTP headers in the HTTP requests that are send to the Camel application. 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. In these conditions an attacker could be able to forge a Camel header name and make the bean component invoking other methods in the same bean. In terms of usage of the default header filter strategy the list of components using that is: * camel-activemq * camel-activemq6 * camel-amqp * camel-aws2-sqs * camel-azure-servicebus * camel-cxf-rest * camel-cxf-soap * camel-http * camel-jetty * camel-jms * camel-kafka * camel-knative * camel-mail * camel-nats * camel-netty-http * camel-platform-http * camel-rest * camel-sjms * camel-spring-rabbitmq * camel-stomp * camel-tahu * camel-undertow * camel-xmpp The vulnerability arises due to a bug in the default filtering mechanism that only blocks headers starting with "Camel", "camel", or "org.apache.camel.". Mitigation: You can easily work around this in your Camel applications by removing the headers in your Camel routes. There are many ways of doing this, also globally or per route. This means you could use the removeHeaders EIP, to filter out anything like "cAmel, cAMEL" etc, or in general everything not starting with "Camel", "camel" or "org.apache.camel.".
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 3.1Exploitable over the network under specific conditions, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to low impact on confidentiality, integrity and availability.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityThe attack only works when conditions outside the attacker's control line up.High
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.Unchanged
- Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read some data, but has no control over what they get.Low
- Integrity impactAn attacker can change some data, but with limited control or limited effect.Low
- Availability impactAn attacker can slow the component down or interrupt it now and then.Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:LPublic exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.
At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.
A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.
Public exploits
None foundNo exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.
Timeline
- 2025-03-09CVE publishedCVE List
- 2025-03-11Cloudflare ships a ruleApache Camel - Code Injection - CVE:CVE-2025-27636
- 2025-04-28F5 rule names itEarliest entry we can see is an update
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
First rule 2025-03-11, 2 days after the CVE was published.
Apache Camel - Code Injection - CVE:CVE-2025-27636. Previous action: N/A. New action: Block. This is a New Detection
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
Named by 2025-04-28; the first entry is an update, so the rule may be older.
Updated: signature 200016013 "Apache Camel Message Header Injection" (Detection Evasion, risk High), systems: Apache Tomcat, Spring Boot. References: CVE-2025-27636.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.