CVE-2026-78329

CRITICALPre-NVD 9.89.8
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

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

Score 9.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: CRITICAL) published 2026-08-24. CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1 baseline 9.8; 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-2026-64962 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

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: 0.6%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 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)
Severity98% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 9.8 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.6% × 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
0.6%
EPSS %ILE
50th
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 (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
0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). 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, 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 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.

The score's inputs: 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 Nov 8, 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.

Patch Availability(3)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
mavenorg.apache.camel:camel-undertow @ 4.14.9 (fixes >= 4.11.0, < 4.14.9)—ghsa
mavenorg.apache.camel:camel-undertow @ 4.18.4 (fixes >= 4.15.0, < 4.18.4)—ghsa
mavenorg.apache.camel:camel-undertow @ 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-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 / 42× 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 189 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 89 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-13 16:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 50th percentile
  2. 2026-11-13 04:24 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  3. 2026-11-13 04:24 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  4. 2026-11-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 50th percentile
  5. 2026-11-12 04:24 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  6. 2026-11-12 04:24 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  7. 2026-11-11 16:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 50th percentile
  8. 2026-11-11 04:23 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  9. 2026-11-11 04:23 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  10. 2026-11-10 16:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 49th percentile
  11. 2026-11-10 04:21 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  12. 2026-11-10 04:21 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  13. 2026-11-09 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 49th percentile
  14. 2026-11-09 04:24 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  15. 2026-11-09 04:24 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  16. 2026-11-08 16:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 49th percentile
  17. 2026-11-08 04:24 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  18. 2026-11-08 04:24 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  19. 2026-11-07 16:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 49th percentile
  20. 2026-11-07 04:22 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  21. 2026-11-07 04:22 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  22. 2026-11-06 18:55 UTCOSV refresh
  23. 2026-11-06 16:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  24. 2026-11-06 04:23 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  25. 2026-11-06 04:23 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-11-05 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  2. 2026-11-05 04:27 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  3. 2026-11-05 04:27 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  4. 2026-11-04 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  5. 2026-11-04 04:32 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  6. 2026-11-04 04:32 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  7. 2026-11-03 16:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  8. 2026-11-03 04:37 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  9. 2026-11-03 04:37 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  10. 2026-11-02 16:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  11. 2026-11-02 04:34 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  12. 2026-11-02 04:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-v7h8-xhh6-gfj4 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  13. 2026-11-01 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  14. 2026-11-01 04:39 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  15. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  16. 2026-10-31 04:44 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  17. 2026-10-30 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  18. 2026-10-30 04:50 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  19. 2026-10-29 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  20. 2026-10-29 04:56 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  21. 2026-10-28 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  22. 2026-10-28 05:01 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  23. 2026-10-27 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  24. 2026-10-27 05:07 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  25. 2026-10-26 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  26. 2026-10-26 01:07 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  27. 2026-10-25 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  28. 2026-10-25 14:00 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  29. 2026-10-25 01:11 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  30. 2026-10-24 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  31. 2026-10-24 01:17 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  32. 2026-10-23 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  33. 2026-10-23 01:22 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  34. 2026-10-22 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 54th percentile
  35. 2026-10-22 01:25 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  36. 2026-10-21 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  37. 2026-10-21 01:30 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  38. 2026-10-20 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  39. 2026-10-20 01:35 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  40. 2026-10-19 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  41. 2026-10-19 00:29 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  42. 2026-10-18 03:11 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  43. 2026-10-18 00:33 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  44. 2026-10-17 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  45. 2026-10-17 00:37 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  46. 2026-10-16 16:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  47. 2026-10-16 00:26 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  48. 2026-10-15 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  49. 2026-10-14 18:59 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  50. 2026-10-14 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  51. 2026-10-13 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  52. 2026-10-13 15:23 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  53. 2026-10-12 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  54. 2026-10-12 15:25 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  55. 2026-10-11 19:22 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  56. 2026-10-11 16:38 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  57. 2026-10-11 13:57 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  58. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  59. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  60. 2026-10-10 12:38 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  61. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  62. 2026-10-09 04:52 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  63. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  64. 2026-10-08 03:57 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  65. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  66. 2026-10-06 16:11 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  67. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 53rd percentile
  68. 2026-10-05 17:50 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  69. 2026-10-05 17:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  70. 2026-10-05 01:26 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  71. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  72. 2026-10-03 16:32 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  73. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 52nd percentile
  74. 2026-10-02 19:06 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  75. 2026-10-01 21:03 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored

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 0.6% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (50th 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.