Insufficient Session Expiration vulnerability in Apache Camel Keycloak component.
This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.16.0 before 4.18.5, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.2.
When token introspection is enabled on the camel-keycloak KeycloakSecurityPolicy (useTokenIntrospection=true), the security processor validates the access token of a request by sending it to Keycloak's OAuth 2.0 token introspection endpoint, and accepts the token while the response reports it as active. The introspection endpoint reports a token as inactive once its exp (expiration) time has passed, so on this path the active flag is what enforces token expiry. Introspection results are cached by default (introspectionCacheEnabled=true, introspectionCacheTtl=60 seconds), and both cache implementations shipped with the component, ConcurrentMapTokenCache and CaffeineTokenCache, expired an entry a fixed time after it was inserted, without bounding that lifetime by the exp claim that the cached response already carried. KeycloakSecurityProcessor in turn checked only the active flag of the result, on every path that uses introspection, and never compared exp with the current time. A response cached shortly before the token expired was therefore served to later requests carrying the same token for up to the configured time-to-live after the token's expiry, and those requests were admitted with the roles and permissions the expired token had carried, although RFC 7662, which defines token introspection, states that a response containing exp must not be cached beyond that time. The access token is supplied by the caller with each request, typically as a bearer token in the Authorization header, so a caller holding a token that was valid moments earlier could keep using it after it expired, for as long as the cached entry lived. The window is bounded by introspectionCacheTtl, which is 60 seconds by default and 300 to 600 seconds where the documentation's recommendation for internal services was followed, and it opens only for a token that the same Camel process introspected and cached while the token was still active. The issue grants nothing beyond what the token already carried: it allows no token forgery and no privilege escalation, and token introspection is not enabled by default, which is why the severity is assessed medium. The local JWT verification path, used when introspection is disabled, is not affected by this issue.
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 4.22.2. If users are on the 4.18.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.18.5. The 4.16.x, 4.17.x and 4.19.x to 4.21.x release lines reached end of life before this issue was resolved and will not receive a fix, so deployments on them must move to a supported release. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, set introspectionCacheEnabled=false on the KeycloakSecurityPolicy, so that every request is checked against the introspection endpoint, which reports an expired token as inactive, at the cost of one introspection call per request. Lowering introspectionCacheTtl only narrows the window and does not close it.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.8 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% 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 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).
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.23.0, which fixes the issue (from the CVE record's solution, Apache Software Foundation). Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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