Apache Camel: Camel Message Header Injection through request parameters
Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it.
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… More
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.
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 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 impactNo data is exposed.None
- 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:N/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
- 2025-03-12CVE publishedCVE List
- 2025-04-02Cloudflare ships a ruleApache Camel - Remote Code Execution - CVE:CVE-2025-29891
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
First rule 2025-04-02, 21 days after the CVE was published.
Apache Camel - Remote Code Execution - CVE:CVE-2025-29891. Previous action: Log. New action: Disabled. This is a New Detection
Apache Camel - Remote Code Execution - CVE:CVE-2025-29891. Previous action: N/A. New action: Disabled. N/A
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)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.
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.