CVE-2026-78329

CRITICALPre-NVD 9.89.8
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

This critical-severity CVE scores 9.8 under CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1 (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.7% (53rd percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1
Sources: CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1, EPSS
9.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.7%CVSS: 9.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

Improper input validation vulnerability in Apache Camel Undertow component.

This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.11.0 before 4.14.9, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.4, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.0.

UndertowEndpoint defaulted its headerFilterStrategy field to the base HttpHeaderFilterStrategy and pushed that instance into the UndertowHttpBinding it creates lazily, overwriting the UndertowHeaderFilterStrategy that DefaultUndertowHttpBinding installs in its own constructor. Unless a deployment supplied a custom binding or an explicit headerFilterStrategy, the undertow-specific filtering therefore never executed on endpoint-configured routes: the strategy object was constructed and immediately replaced before it could be consulted. The consequence is that the legacy websocket. Exchange-header prefix was not filtered at the undertow transport boundary in either direction, so an undertow HTTP consumer mapped inbound wire headers of that form onto the Exchange, where an undertow WebSocket producer reads them as dispatch directives and can be made to deliver to a peer other than the one the route selected; and header names that undertow itself does not accept were mapped onto the Exchange rather than being skipped. Rest DSL consumers were never affected, because UndertowComponent assigns UndertowRestHeaderFilterStrategy explicitly, which extends the undertow strategy. This is not a regression of CVE-2025-30177: the base HttpHeaderFilterStrategy configures the inbound Camel-prefix filter itself, so the protection introduced by that advisory continued to work through the base class and was never lost. What the change did was leave the undertow strategy orphaned on the endpoint path, with the effect that two subsequent corrections written into it - one skipping header names undertow rejects, one filtering the legacy websocket. prefix in both directions - were applied to a class the endpoint no longer used and never took effect in the releases that shipped them.

Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.22.0, which fixes the issue. If users are on the 4.14.x LTS releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.14.9. If users are on the 4.18.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.18.4. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, configure the strategy explicitly rather than relying on the default, for example by binding an UndertowHeaderFilterStrategy in the registry and referencing it on the endpoint as undertow:http://0.0.0.0:8080/foo?headerFilterStrategy=#myStrategy, and additionally strip the dispatch headers at the trust boundary with removeHeaders(“websocket.*”). Note a residual limitation that upgrading does not remove: the undertow component deliberately keeps the websocket. values as part of its externally visible API contract, and UndertowProducer reads them with in.getHeader, which does not consult a HeaderFilterStrategy at all. The restored filtering is therefore defence in depth at the undertow transport boundary only. A route that carries an untrusted message from a non-undertow consumer into an undertow producer is not protected by this fix and must strip those headers itself.

CVSS v3
9.8
EG Score
9.8CRITICALmedium confidence
EG Risk
59
EG Risk 59/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity98% × 45%
The EG Score, 9.8 of 10.
Exploitation0.7% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
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.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
0.7%
EPSS %ILE
53rd
KEV
Not listed

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

Published

August 24, 2026

Last Modified

October 12, 2026

Advisory Details (1)

Auto-updated Oct 13, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

Apache Camel Security Advisory - CVE-2026-78329 - Apache Camel

https://camel.apache.org/security/CVE-2026-78329.html

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-78329(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
Maven(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
org.apache.camel:camel-undertow4.19.0, 4.20.0, 4.21.0
  • 4.11.0 up to 4.14.9: fixed in 4.14.9
  • 4.15.0 up to 4.18.4: fixed in 4.18.4
  • 4.19.0 up to 4.22.0: fixed in 4.22.0
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 15× in last 7d / 57× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 96 of 110 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 4 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 14 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-10-13 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  2. 2026-10-13 15:23 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-12 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  4. 2026-10-12 15:25 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-11 19:22 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 16:38 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 13:57 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  9. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  10. 2026-10-10 12:38 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  12. 2026-10-09 04:52 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  14. 2026-10-08 03:57 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  16. 2026-10-06 16:11 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  18. 2026-10-05 17:50 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-10-05 17:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  20. 2026-10-05 01:26 UTCEG score recompute
  21. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  22. 2026-10-03 16:32 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  24. 2026-10-02 19:06 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-10-01 21:03 UTCEG score recompute
Show 71 more
  1. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  2. 2026-09-30 20:18 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-09-30 07:11 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-09-29 15:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  5. 2026-09-28 21:32 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-09-28 14:47 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  8. 2026-09-27 14:32 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-09-27 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  10. 2026-09-27 00:37 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  12. 2026-09-26 00:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  13. 2026-09-24 16:06 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-09-24 14:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  15. 2026-09-23 19:59 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-09-23 17:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  17. 2026-09-22 19:29 UTCEG score recompute
  18. 2026-09-22 16:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  19. 2026-09-21 21:52 UTCEG score recompute
  20. 2026-09-21 21:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  21. 2026-09-20 20:56 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-09-20 20:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  23. 2026-09-19 18:20 UTCEG score recompute
  24. 2026-09-18 21:34 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-09-18 19:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  26. 2026-09-17 21:12 UTCEG score recompute
  27. 2026-09-16 14:15 UTCEG score recompute
  28. 2026-09-16 14:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  29. 2026-09-16 09:27 UTCEG score recompute
  30. 2026-09-16 05:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  31. 2026-09-15 03:45 UTCEG score recompute
  32. 2026-09-15 03:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  33. 2026-09-13 17:47 UTCEG score recompute
  34. 2026-09-12 17:39 UTCEG score recompute
  35. 2026-09-11 17:32 UTCEG score recompute
  36. 2026-09-11 14:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 36th percentile
  37. 2026-09-11 12:58 UTCEG score recompute
  38. 2026-09-10 12:41 UTCEG score recompute
  39. 2026-09-10 09:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 35th percentile
  40. 2026-09-09 01:30 UTCEG score recompute
  41. 2026-09-08 22:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 35th percentile
  42. 2026-09-07 19:22 UTCEG score recompute
  43. 2026-09-06 16:17 UTCEG score recompute
  44. 2026-09-06 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 35th percentile
  45. 2026-09-05 15:59 UTCEG score recompute
  46. 2026-09-04 14:26 UTCEG score recompute
  47. 2026-09-04 06:20 UTCEG score recompute
  48. 2026-09-04 05:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 35th percentile
  49. 2026-09-02 14:34 UTCEG score recompute
  50. 2026-09-02 14:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 35th percentile
  51. 2026-09-01 14:19 UTCEG score recompute
  52. 2026-09-01 13:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 35th percentile
  53. 2026-09-01 06:15 UTCEG score recompute
  54. 2026-09-01 04:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 35th percentile
  55. 2026-08-30 21:42 UTCEG score recompute
  56. 2026-08-30 19:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 35th percentile
  57. 2026-08-30 01:36 UTCEG score recompute
  58. 2026-08-30 01:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 35th percentile
  59. 2026-08-29 00:26 UTCEG score recompute
  60. 2026-08-28 21:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 35th percentile
  61. 2026-08-28 18:49 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4
  62. 2026-08-28 14:46 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4
  63. 2026-08-28 10:37 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4
  64. 2026-08-28 06:36 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4
  65. 2026-08-28 02:29 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4
  66. 2026-08-27 22:28 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4
  67. 2026-08-27 18:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4
  68. 2026-08-27 18:14 UTCEG score recompute
  69. 2026-08-27 18:14 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4
  70. 2026-08-27 14:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 23rd percentile
  71. 2026-08-27 12:45 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-78329?
CVE-2026-78329 is a critical-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on August 24, 2026. Improper input validation vulnerability in Apache Camel Undertow component. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.11.0 before 4.14.9, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.4, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.0. UndertowEndpoint defaulted its headerFilterStrategy field to the base HttpHeaderFilterStrategy and pushed…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-78329 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-78329 was published on August 24, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 12, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-78329 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-78329 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.7% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (53rd percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-78329?
CVE-2026-78329 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (CISA-ADP / Vulnrichment enrichment; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-78329?
A fix for CVE-2026-78329 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-78329 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-78329

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-78329?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.