CVE-2026-66907

HIGHPre-NVD 7.57.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

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

Score 7.5 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-08-24. CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1 baseline 7.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1, EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory

Also known asEUVD-2026-64958 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-f78g-9385-qxqj (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.5EG
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: 0.8%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

Relative path traversal vulnerability in Apache Camel Google Storage component.

This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.0.0 before 4.14.9, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.4, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.0.

The camel-google-storage consumer downloads Google Cloud Storage objects to the local filesystem when the downloadFileName option is set. That option is documented as a folder or a filename, and when its value contains no expression token the consumer builds the local destination by appending the object name to it: evaluateFileExpression sets the Exchange file-name header to the remote object name and evaluates downloadFileName + "/${file:name}". The ${file:name} token returns the file-name header verbatim, unlike ${file:onlyname}, which applies FileUtil.stripPath to it. The resulting string was passed directly to new File(result) and blob.downloadTo(file.toPath()) with no lexical normalization and no check that the destination stayed inside the configured directory. The object name is not route-controlled data: the consumer lists the bucket, iterates every returned blob and creates one exchange per object from blob.getBlobId().getName() verbatim, and the filter option that could restrict those names is not applied at all unless it has been explicitly set. Google Cloud Storage object names are opaque UTF-8 keys that the service stores and lists exactly as written, with no server-side canonicalization, and a forward slash is only a display convention for pseudo-directories, so a key containing parent-directory segments survives round-tripping intact. An object name containing such segments therefore resolved to a location outside the configured downloadFileName directory, letting anyone able to influence the names present in the consumed bucket cause Camel to create or overwrite a file at a location of their choosing, with the privileges of the Camel process. Depending on what the process can write to, overwriting a file outside the download directory can escalate beyond the loss of integrity of that file. The downloadFileName option is an ordinary consumer parameter and carries no security marker, so nothing signalled to users that its value was not being enforced as a containment boundary. The defect is consumer-only; the producer has no download-to-file sink. Camel's other file-download consumers - camel-file, camel-ftp, camel-smb, camel-mina-sftp, camel-azure-files and the Azure Storage download paths - already constrained their local downloads to the configured directory using a path-segment boundary check; camel-google-storage was the remaining object-store download sink not covered by that work.

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, set the filter option to a regular expression that accepts only simple single-segment object names, so that any name carrying a path separator or a parent-directory segment is excluded before an exchange is created; note that no filtering whatsoever is applied when the option is left unset, and that the expression is matched against the whole object name. Alternatively, give downloadFileName an explicit expression that does not carry the remote path through, for example one built on ${file:onlyname} rather than the implicit ${file:name}, keeping in mind that a downloadFileName containing an expression is treated as route-author-controlled and is not covered by the containment check added in the fix. As defence in depth, treat the object names in any externally writable bucket as untrusted input and do not derive local filesystem paths from them.

CVSS v3
7.5
EG Score
7.5HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
49
EG Risk 49/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity75% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.5 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.8% × 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 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.
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
0.8%
EPSS %ILE
57th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.5 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 2026-11-07). 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: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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 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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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

Published

August 24, 2026

Last Modified

October 24, 2026

Advisory Details (1)

Auto-updated Aug 25, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

Apache Camel Security Advisory - CVE-2026-66907 - Apache Camel

https://camel.apache.org/security/CVE-2026-66907.html

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-66907(1)

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

Patch Availability(3)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
mavenorg.apache.camel:camel-google-storage @ 4.14.9 (fixes >= 4.0.0, < 4.14.9)—ghsa
mavenorg.apache.camel:camel-google-storage @ 4.18.4 (fixes >= 4.15.0, < 4.18.4)—ghsa
mavenorg.apache.camel:camel-google-storage @ 4.22.0 (fixes >= 4.19.0, < 4.22.0)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
Maven(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
org.apache.camel:camel-google-storage4.19.0, 4.20.0, 4.21.0
  • 4.0.0 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 8× in last 7d / 30× 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 its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). 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). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 137 rows 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. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 37 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 57th percentile
  2. 2026-11-11 16:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 57th percentile
  3. 2026-11-10 16:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 57th percentile
  4. 2026-11-09 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 57th percentile
  5. 2026-11-08 16:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 57th percentile
  6. 2026-11-07 17:41 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  7. 2026-11-07 17:41 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f78g-9385-qxqj · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  8. 2026-11-07 16:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 57th percentile
  9. 2026-11-06 16:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 57th percentile
  10. 2026-11-05 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 57th percentile
  11. 2026-11-04 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  12. 2026-11-03 16:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  13. 2026-11-02 16:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  14. 2026-11-01 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  15. 2026-10-31 17:15 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  16. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  17. 2026-10-30 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  18. 2026-10-29 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  19. 2026-10-28 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  20. 2026-10-27 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  21. 2026-10-26 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  22. 2026-10-25 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  23. 2026-10-25 14:10 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  24. 2026-10-24 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  25. 2026-10-23 23:29 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-10-23 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  2. 2026-10-22 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  3. 2026-10-21 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  4. 2026-10-20 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  5. 2026-10-20 11:20 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  6. 2026-10-19 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  7. 2026-10-18 03:20 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  8. 2026-10-17 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  9. 2026-10-16 16:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  10. 2026-10-15 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 56th percentile
  11. 2026-10-14 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  12. 2026-10-13 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  13. 2026-10-13 10:52 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  14. 2026-10-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  15. 2026-10-12 15:46 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  16. 2026-10-11 19:31 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  17. 2026-10-11 16:46 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  18. 2026-10-11 14:07 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  19. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  20. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  21. 2026-10-10 12:38 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  22. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  23. 2026-10-09 04:52 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  24. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  25. 2026-10-08 03:57 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  26. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  27. 2026-10-06 16:11 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  28. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  29. 2026-10-06 02:50 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  30. 2026-10-05 17:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  31. 2026-10-03 16:32 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  32. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  33. 2026-10-03 01:41 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  34. 2026-10-02 17:56 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  35. 2026-10-01 22:43 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  36. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  37. 2026-09-30 20:18 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  38. 2026-09-30 15:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  39. 2026-09-30 07:11 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  40. 2026-09-29 04:04 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  41. 2026-09-28 15:15 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  42. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  43. 2026-09-28 02:12 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  44. 2026-09-27 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  45. 2026-09-27 00:37 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  46. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.8% · 55th percentile
  47. 2026-09-24 15:27 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  48. 2026-09-24 02:26 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  49. 2026-09-23 17:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  50. 2026-09-23 00:47 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  51. 2026-09-21 23:12 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  52. 2026-09-20 21:36 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  53. 2026-09-20 20:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  54. 2026-09-19 19:24 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  55. 2026-09-19 06:36 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  56. 2026-09-18 19:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  57. 2026-09-18 04:58 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  58. 2026-09-16 14:15 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  59. 2026-09-16 14:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 46th percentile
  60. 2026-09-16 05:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  61. 2026-09-15 11:42 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  62. 2026-09-13 21:19 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  63. 2026-09-12 19:43 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  64. 2026-09-11 18:07 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  65. 2026-09-11 14:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  66. 2026-09-11 09:37 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  67. 2026-09-10 16:31 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  68. 2026-09-09 01:30 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  69. 2026-09-08 22:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  70. 2026-09-07 16:44 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  71. 2026-09-07 16:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  72. 2026-09-06 15:09 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  73. 2026-09-06 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile
  74. 2026-09-06 02:20 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  75. 2026-09-05 15:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 45th percentile

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-66907?
CVE-2026-66907 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on August 24, 2026. Relative path traversal vulnerability in Apache Camel Google Storage component. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.0.0 before 4.14.9, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.4, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.0. The camel-google-storage consumer downloads Google Cloud Storage objects to the local filesystem when the…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-66907 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-66907 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 24, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-66907 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-66907 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.8% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (57th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-66907?
CVE-2026-66907 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (CISA-ADP / Vulnrichment enrichment; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-66907?
A fix for CVE-2026-66907 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-66907 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-2026-66907

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-66907?

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