CVE-2026-66908

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
Trending — 3 sources updated this week

Also known asEUVD-2026-64959 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-fpm2-m4qq-wghr (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: 0.6%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

Improper Authentication vulnerability in Apache Camel Platform HTTP Main component.

This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.8.0 before 4.22.0.

The camel-main embedded HTTP server can protect its endpoints with JWT authentication, configured through authenticationEnabled together with the JWT keystore properties. JWTAuthenticationConfigurer.buildJwtOptions returned null when neither jwtIssuer nor jwtAudience was configured, and the caller then skipped the JWTAuthOptions.setJWTOptions call entirely, so the Vert.x JWTAuth instance was built from the keystore alone. The result was that inbound tokens were checked only for signature and expiry: the iss and aud claims were not validated at all. Nothing signalled this - the server started normally and reported no warning - so a deployment configured the documented way silently enforced less than the operator believed it had enabled, and the component documentation itself presented signature and expiry checking as the default with issuer and audience as an optional extra. Both the application server and the management server were affected, because the omission was in each of the two configureAuthentication paths. Any unexpired token signed by any key the configured keystore trusts was therefore accepted, regardless of which issuer minted it or which audience it was intended for. How far that reaches depends on the trust set of the keystore: where the signing key belongs to a shared or multi-tenant identity provider, a token legitimately issued for an entirely different audience is accepted, while a keystore holding a dedicated signer narrows it to reuse of tokens minted for other services within the same trust domain. The jwtIssuer and jwtAudience options did not exist before 4.21.0, so on earlier releases there was no supported way to have these claims enforced at all.

Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.22.0, which fixes the issue. From 4.22.0 the server refuses to start when a JWT keystore is configured but neither jwtIssuer nor jwtAudience is set, naming the properties involved, and a deployment that genuinely wants signature and expiry validation only must say so explicitly with the new jwtAllowMissingIssuerAndAudience option, which defaults to false. This behaviour is fixed only on 4.22.0. The 4.14.9 and 4.18.4 releases do not change the default: they add the jwtIssuer and jwtAudience options so that operators on those maintenance lines can enforce the claims by configuration, and an installation that upgrades to 4.14.9 or 4.18.4 without also setting at least one of those two properties is still accepting any unexpired token signed by a trusted key. Users on 4.14.x or 4.18.x should therefore upgrade to 4.14.9 or 4.18.4 and then set jwtIssuer, jwtAudience, or both. Releases from 4.8.0 up to and including 4.21.x offer no way to enforce these claims and should be moved to a version that does. Independently of version, restrict the JWT keystore to the smallest possible trust set - ideally a signer dedicated to this service rather than a shared identity-provider key - and where a gateway already validates issuer and audience in front of the server, ensure it cannot be bypassed.

Notes:

The JIRA ticket:  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-24281  refers to the various commits that resolved the issue, and has more details.

The fail-closed guard could not be backported. The jwtIssuer and jwtAudience options were themselves only introduced in 4.21.0 by CAMEL-23525, so on camel-4.18.x and camel-4.14.x there was nothing an operator could set to satisfy the requirement and the guard would have broken every JWT deployment on those branches with no remedy available.

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.
Exploitation0.6% × 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 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
0.6%
EPSS %ILE
49th
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
0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-30). 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-2026-66908 - Apache Camel

https://camel.apache.org/security/CVE-2026-66908.html

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
redhatcamel-platform-http-main2026-09-24redhat

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-platform-http-main4.10.0 ... 4.9.0 (45 versions)
  • 4.8.0 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 9× in last 7d / 62× 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 100 of 155 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. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 55 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-01 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 49th percentile
  2. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 49th percentile
  3. 2026-10-31 00:27 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-31 00:27 UTCVendor advisory
  5. 2026-10-30 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 49th percentile
  6. 2026-10-29 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 49th percentile
  7. 2026-10-28 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 49th percentile
  8. 2026-10-27 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  9. 2026-10-26 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  10. 2026-10-25 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  11. 2026-10-25 14:10 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-24 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  13. 2026-10-23 23:29 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-23 23:29 UTCVendor advisory
  15. 2026-10-23 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  16. 2026-10-22 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  17. 2026-10-21 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  18. 2026-10-20 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  19. 2026-10-19 18:57 UTCEG score recompute
  20. 2026-10-19 18:57 UTCVendor advisory
  21. 2026-10-19 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  22. 2026-10-18 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  23. 2026-10-18 03:20 UTCEG score recompute
  24. 2026-10-17 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  25. 2026-10-16 16:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-10-15 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 48th percentile
  2. 2026-10-14 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  3. 2026-10-13 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  4. 2026-10-13 10:52 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-13 10:52 UTCVendor advisory
  6. 2026-10-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  7. 2026-10-12 15:46 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 19:31 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-11 16:46 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-10-11 14:07 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  12. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  13. 2026-10-10 12:38 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-10 12:38 UTCVendor advisory
  15. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  16. 2026-10-09 04:52 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-09 04:52 UTCVendor advisory
  18. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  19. 2026-10-08 03:57 UTCEG score recompute
  20. 2026-10-08 03:57 UTCVendor advisory
  21. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  22. 2026-10-07 07:16 UTCVendor advisory
  23. 2026-10-06 19:20 UTCEG score recompute
  24. 2026-10-06 19:20 UTCVendor advisory
  25. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  26. 2026-10-06 07:45 UTCEG score recompute
  27. 2026-10-06 07:45 UTCVendor advisory
  28. 2026-10-05 17:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  29. 2026-10-05 17:04 UTCVendor advisory
  30. 2026-10-05 04:46 UTCEG score recompute
  31. 2026-10-05 04:46 UTCVendor advisory
  32. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  33. 2026-10-04 15:41 UTCVendor advisory
  34. 2026-10-04 04:07 UTCVendor advisory
  35. 2026-10-03 16:32 UTCEG score recompute
  36. 2026-10-03 16:32 UTCVendor advisory
  37. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  38. 2026-10-02 20:58 UTCEG score recompute
  39. 2026-10-02 20:58 UTCVendor advisory
  40. 2026-10-02 17:56 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  41. 2026-10-02 08:37 UTCVendor advisory
  42. 2026-10-01 21:03 UTCEG score recompute
  43. 2026-10-01 21:03 UTCVendor advisory
  44. 2026-10-01 19:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  45. 2026-10-01 07:52 UTCVendor advisory
  46. 2026-09-30 20:18 UTCEG score recompute
  47. 2026-09-30 20:18 UTCVendor advisory
  48. 2026-09-30 15:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  49. 2026-09-30 07:11 UTCEG score recompute
  50. 2026-09-30 07:11 UTCVendor advisory
  51. 2026-09-29 15:14 UTCVendor advisory
  52. 2026-09-28 23:22 UTCEG score recompute
  53. 2026-09-28 23:22 UTCVendor advisory
  54. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  55. 2026-09-28 11:28 UTCVendor advisory
  56. 2026-09-27 23:53 UTCEG score recompute
  57. 2026-09-27 23:53 UTCVendor advisory
  58. 2026-09-27 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  59. 2026-09-27 12:11 UTCVendor advisory
  60. 2026-09-27 00:37 UTCEG score recompute
  61. 2026-09-27 00:37 UTCVendor advisory
  62. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.6% · 47th percentile
  63. 2026-09-24 19:09 UTCEG score recompute
  64. 2026-09-23 19:59 UTCEG score recompute
  65. 2026-09-23 17:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  66. 2026-09-22 19:29 UTCEG score recompute
  67. 2026-09-22 07:09 UTCEG score recompute
  68. 2026-09-20 20:24 UTCEG score recompute
  69. 2026-09-20 20:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  70. 2026-09-19 20:45 UTCEG score recompute
  71. 2026-09-18 21:35 UTCEG score recompute
  72. 2026-09-18 19:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile
  73. 2026-09-17 21:12 UTCEG score recompute
  74. 2026-09-16 21:36 UTCEG score recompute
  75. 2026-09-16 14:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 34th percentile

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-66908?
CVE-2026-66908 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on August 24, 2026. Improper Authentication vulnerability in Apache Camel Platform HTTP Main component. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.8.0 before 4.22.0. The camel-main embedded HTTP server can protect its endpoints with JWT authentication, configured through authenticationEnabled together with the JWT…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-66908 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-66908 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-2026-66908 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-66908 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.6% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (49th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-66908?
CVE-2026-66908 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (CISA-ADP / Vulnrichment enrichment; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-66908?
A fix for CVE-2026-66908 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-66908 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-2026-66908

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-66908?

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