Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Apache Camel PQC component.
The camel-pqc component persists post-quantum key metadata (KeyMetadata) through pluggable KeyLifecycleManager implementations. HashicorpVaultKeyLifecycleManager and AwsSecretsManagerKeyLifecycleManager read that metadata back from the configured secret backend by deserializing a Base64-wrapped value with a raw java.io.ObjectInputStream.readObject() and no ObjectInputFilter or class allow-list; the cast to KeyMetadata happens only after readObject() returns, so any readObject() side effects in a crafted object run before the type check. The same unfiltered legacy-migration read also remained in FileBasedKeyLifecycleManager (for the stored KeyPair and KeyMetadata). A principal who can write to the operator-controlled backend that holds these values - the HashiCorp Vault KV path, or the AWS Secrets Manager secret (requiring a Vault token or secretsmanager:PutSecretValue) - could store a crafted serialized object that is deserialized during normal key-lifecycle operations, potentially leading to code execution in the context of the application that manages the keys. This is an incomplete-remediation follow-on to CVE-2026-40048 (CAMEL-23200), which changed FileBasedKeyLifecycleManager to store metadata as JSON / PKCS#8 / X.509 but did not add an ObjectInputFilter, did not cover the Vault and AWS sibling managers, and left FileBasedKeyLifecycleManager's own legacy-migration deserialization unfiltered.
This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.18.0 before 4.18.3, from 4.19.0 before 4.21.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.21.0, which fixes the issue. If users are on the 4.18.x LTS releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.18.3. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, restrict write access to the key backend so that only the application's own identity can write the camel-pqc secrets (least-privilege HashiCorp Vault policies and secretsmanager:PutSecretValue IAM), and keep the PQC key material in a backend separate from any data that less-trusted principals can write.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.8% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it