Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') and Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor vulnerability in Apache Camel Docling component.
This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.15.0 before 4.18.5, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.1.
DoclingProducer decided what a String message body meant by inspecting its prefix. A body starting with http:// or https:// was handed to Docling as a remote URL to fetch, a body starting with / or containing a backslash was read from the local filesystem, and anything else was written to a temporary file and converted as document content. The mode was chosen implicitly and no endpoint option allowed a route author to pin the component to a single interpretation, so a route that means convert whatever text arrives in the body silently became a fetcher of remote resources or a reader of local files whenever the text happened to begin with one of those prefixes. The only guard applied to the derived value was a size check, and that check was wrapped in an existence test, so a path that resolved to nothing, or to a pseudo-file reporting a size of zero, passed without being checked at all. Five call sites reached the two sinks: the CLI mode appended the value as the final positional argument of the docling subprocess, and the docling-serve mode passed it either to HttpSource for the backend to fetch or to Files.readAllBytes so that the content could be base64-encoded and uploaded. Because the exchange body is never filtered by a HeaderFilterStrategy, unlike the Camel header namespace, a sender able to place text in a message that a route forwards into a docling endpoint could reach both sinks without any opt-in from the deployment.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.23.0, which fixes the issue. If users are on the 4.22.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.22.1. If users are on the 4.18.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.18.5. The 4.14.x releases stream and earlier reached end of life before this issue was resolved and will not receive a fix, so deployments on those lines must move to a supported release. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, do not route message bodies that originate outside the deployment into a docling endpoint, and pass the document through a typed body such as File, byte[] or InputStream, or through the CamelDoclingInputFilePath header, so that the body is never subject to prefix interpretation.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.9): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.9 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.9 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
Users on the 4.22.x stream should upgrade to 4.22.1 and users on the 4.18.x stream should upgrade to 4.18.5 (from the CVE record's solution, Apache Software Foundation). Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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)60 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 partial (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