Improper Input Validation, Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection') vulnerability in Apache Camel Kafka Component.
The camel-kafka producer can override its configured target topic at runtime from the kafka.OVERRIDE_TOPIC Exchange header: KafkaProducer.evaluateTopic() returns the header value in preference to the topic configured on the endpoint. The control-header constants in KafkaConstants (for example OVERRIDE_TOPIC = kafka.OVERRIDE_TOPIC, OVERRIDE_TIMESTAMP = kafka.OVERRIDE_TIMESTAMP, PARTITION_KEY = kafka.PARTITION_KEY) used plain, non-Camel-prefixed values. camel-kafka's own KafkaHeaderFilterStrategy does filter the kafka.* namespace, but only on the Kafka-to-Exchange serialization boundary (reading Kafka record headers into the Exchange, and writing Exchange headers into a Kafka record); it does not apply to headers that arrive from an upstream consumer in a multi-component route. The upstream HTTP consumer uses HttpHeaderFilterStrategy, which blocks only the Camel / camel namespace, so a kafka.* header passes through unfiltered. As a result, in a route that bridges an HTTP consumer (for example platform-http) into a kafka: producer, any HTTP client could set the kafka.OVERRIDE_TOPIC header and cause the message to be published to an arbitrary Kafka topic instead of the configured one - redirecting it to a sensitive internal topic, or injecting attacker-crafted messages into a topic consumed by a critical downstream service. The related kafka.OVERRIDE_TIMESTAMP and kafka.PARTITION_KEY headers could likewise be injected to backdate messages or target specific partitions. No credentials are required when the bridging consumer is unauthenticated.
This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.0.0 before 4.14.8, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.3, from 4.19.0 before 4.21.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.21.0, which fixes the issue. If users are on the 4.14.x LTS releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.14.8. If users are on the 4.18.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.18.3. After upgrading, routes that set or read Kafka headers via the raw header names must use the CamelKafka* names (for example CamelKafkaOverrideTopic and CamelKafkaTopic) instead of the old kafka.* values. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, strip the kafka.* headers from any untrusted ingress before the kafka: producer (for example removeHeaders('kafka.*') at the start of the route), and set the target topic from a trusted source.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.3 MEDIUMCVSS-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 2026-10-24). 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