Improper Input Validation vulnerability in Apache Camel AWS SNS component.
The camel-aws2-sns component filters Camel headers through a component-specific HeaderFilterStrategy, Sns2HeaderFilterStrategy. Like the sibling Sqs2HeaderFilterStrategy, it originally configured only an outbound filter (setOutFilterPattern, which blocks Camel*, breadcrumbId and org.apache.camel.* headers from being written out) and did not configure an inbound filter rule. For the related camel-aws2-sqs component this inbound gap was exploitable, because the Sqs2Consumer maps inbound SQS message attributes into the Camel Exchange via HeaderFilterStrategy.applyFilterToExternalHeaders, allowing a message sender to inject Camel control headers (tracked as CVE-2026-46456). camel-aws2-sns, by contrast, is producer-only: Sns2Endpoint does not support consumers (createConsumer throws UnsupportedOperationException, 'You cannot receive messages from this endpoint'), so no externally-supplied message attributes are ever mapped inbound into a Camel Exchange through SNS, and the missing inbound filter rule on Sns2HeaderFilterStrategy was therefore not reachable by an attacker. As part of the same fix (CAMEL-23506), an inbound filter rule (setInFilterStartsWith for the Camel namespace) was added to Sns2HeaderFilterStrategy so that its configuration matches the corrected Sqs2HeaderFilterStrategy and the other sibling strategies. This is a defense-in-depth alignment with no known exploit path in camel-aws2-sns.
This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.0.0 before 4.14.8, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.3, from 4.19.0 before 4.21.0.
This is a defense-in-depth hardening change with no known exploit path in camel-aws2-sns, which is producer-only, so no urgent action or workaround is required. Users who want the aligned behaviour can upgrade to version 4.21.0, or to 4.14.8 on the 4.14.x LTS releases stream, or to 4.18.3 on the 4.18.x releases stream, which contain the change. As a general best practice, operators should continue to apply least-privilege IAM permissions on their SNS topics.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.7% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-26). 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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