CVE-2025-29891

Bypass/Injection vulnerability in Apache Camel.

This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.10.0 before 4.10.2, from 4.8.0 before 4.8.5, from 3.10.0 before 3.22.4.

Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.10.2 for 4.10.x LTS, 4.8.5 for 4.8.x LTS and 3.22.4 for 3.x releases.

This vulnerability is present in Camels default incoming header filter, that allows an attacker to include Camel specific headers that for some Camel components can alter the behaviours such as the camel-bean component, or the camel-exec component.

If you have Camel applications that are directly connected to the internet via HTTP, then an attacker could include parameters in the HTTP requests that are sent to the Camel application that get translated into headers. 

The headers could be both provided as request parameters for an HTTP methods invocation or as part of the payload of the HTTP methods invocation.

All the known Camel HTTP component such as camel-servlet, camel-jetty, camel-undertow, camel-platform-http, and camel-netty-http would be vulnerable out of the box.

This CVE is related to the CVE-2025-27636: while they have the same root cause and are fixed with the same fix, CVE-2025-27636 was assumed to only be exploitable if an attacker could add malicious HTTP headers, while we have now determined that it is also exploitable via HTTP parameters. Like in CVE-2025-27636, exploitation is only possible if the Camel route uses particular vulnerable components.

Weakness

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes internal special elements that could be interpreted in unexpected ways when they are sent to a downstream component.

Potential Mitigations

• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

References

• https://camel.apache.org/security/CVE-2025-27636.html
• https://camel.apache.org/security/CVE-2025-29891.html
• https://github.com/akamai/CVE-2025-27636-Apache-Camel-PoC