BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-59230High confidence

Apache Camel: Camel-Mail: the MimeMultipart data format copied MIME headers onto the Camel message without a header filter strategy when unmarshalling with headersInline enabled

Apache Software Foundation · Apache Camel

6.5MediumCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Scheduled

Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.

Patch available
R
Operational reassessment

Published severity in operational context

Open reassessment dashboard →
Published severityMediumOperational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged

Evidence used

  • No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
  • The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
  • EPSS is 0.68% for the current model date.

Compensating controls

  • Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
  • Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
  • Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.

Verification

  1. Confirm that the asset runs Apache Software Foundation Apache Camel and falls inside the recorded affected range.
  2. Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
  3. Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
  4. Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Mitigation target: As exposure requiresRemediation target: Within 365 days

This automated reassessment organises public evidence. It does not know asset exposure, business impact or control effectiveness and does not replace CVSS or a human risk decision.

Open-source package ranges6 source-attributed ranges

These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.

Ecosystem and packageAffected rangeFirst fixed versionEvidence
Mavenorg.apache.camel:camel-mailECOSYSTEM: introduced 2.17.0; fixed 4.14.94.14.9OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 28 Aug 2026
Mavenorg.apache.camel:camel-mailECOSYSTEM: introduced 4.15.0; fixed 4.18.44.18.4OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 28 Aug 2026
Mavenorg.apache.camel:camel-mailECOSYSTEM: introduced 4.19.0; fixed 4.22.04.22.0OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 28 Aug 2026
mavenorg.apache.camel:camel-mail>= 2.17.0, < 4.14.94.14.9GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 28 Aug 2026
mavenorg.apache.camel:camel-mail>= 4.15.0, < 4.18.44.18.4GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 28 Aug 2026
mavenorg.apache.camel:camel-mail>= 4.19.0, < 4.22.04.22.0GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 28 Aug 2026
Direct vendor intelligence

Authoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories

Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.

1 current
CVE-2026-59230 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securityorg.apache.camel/camel-mail: Apache Camel: Injected MIME headers can manipulate route behavior
2 known affected

The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.

  • camel-mail as a component of Red Hat build of Apache Camel 4 for Quarkus 3
  • camel-mail as a component of Red Hat Fuse 7
Summary
A flaw was found in Apache Camel's camel-mail component. The MimeMultipart data format copies MIME headers from an incoming message onto the Camel message when unmarshalling with headersInline=true, without applying a HeaderFilterStrategy. An attacker who can provide a crafted MIME message may inject Camel-internal headers into the Exchange. Downstream Camel components may interpret these headers as control inputs and alter route behavior, potentially causing unintended actions or data processing. The actual impact depends on the downstream route and components that process the message. The vulnerable behavior affects camel-mail versions from 2.17.0 before 4.14.9, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.4, and from 4.19.0 before 4.22.0. The default headersInline=false configuration is not affected because MIME headers are handled as attachments rather than copied to the Camel message headers.
Remediation
Before applying this update, make sure all previously released errata relevant to your system have been applied. For details on how to apply this update, refer to: https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Choose official national sources for this report. Each advisory shows its original language. Your selection is remembered on this device and included in shared links.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2026-64953

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

Improper input validation vulnerability in Apache Camel. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 2.17.0 before 4.14.9, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.4, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.0. The camel-mail component ships a MimeMultipart data format that can unmarshal a MIME multipart message. When it is configured with headersInline set to true, the unmarshal path copies the MIME headers of the incoming message onto the Camel message: it enumerates every header that is not one of the three standard ones it generates itself - Message-ID, MIME-Version and Content-Type - and calls setHeader for each, applying no HeaderFilterStrategy. The names of those MIME headers come from the message being unmarshalled, so a sender able to influence the message could place a header whose name falls in the Camel-internal namespace and have it set on the Exchange. Camel components read control headers from that namespace to override their configured behaviour - the camel-sql producer, for instance, takes the statement to execute from a Camel header when one is present - so an injected header could redirect what a downstream step in the route does with data the route author never intended it to take from the message. Which sinks are reachable, and what the consequences are, depends entirely on what the route does after the unmarshal step. The camel-mail consumer already applied a header filter strategy on its own inbound path, so this was the parallel inbound path into the same component that the earlier hardening did not cover. The affected copy is reached only when headersInline is enabled, which is not the default: with the default setting the MIME headers are surfaced as attachments rather than as message headers, and are not affected. The behaviour dates back to the introduction of the data format in 2.17.0 and was present on every release line until this fix. 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, leave headersInline at its default of false where the inline headers are not needed, since the copy is only reached when it is enabled. Where it must stay enabled, strip Camel-internal headers immediately after the unmarshal step, for example with removeHeaders(“Camel*”) placed before any processor or producer that reads control headers, and do not unmarshal MIME content from an untrusted sender into a route that dispatches on header values. As defence in depth, treat the header names of any MIME message arriving from outside the trust boundary as untrusted input.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
6.5 · CVSS 3.1
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionScheduled

Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.

Patch available
01

What, why and how

Improper input validation vulnerability in Apache Camel. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 2.17.0 before 4.14.9, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.4, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.0. The camel-mail component ships a MimeMultipart data format that can unmarshal a MIME multipart message. When it is configured with headersInline set to true, the unmarshal path copies the MIME headers of the incoming message onto the Camel message: it enumerates every header that is not one of the three standard ones it generates itself - Message-ID, MIME-Version and Content-Type - and calls setHeader for each, applying no HeaderFilterStrategy. The names of those MIME headers come from the message being unmarshalled, so a sender able to influence the message could place a header whose name falls in the Camel-internal namespace and have it set on the Exchange. Camel components read control headers from that namespace to override their configured behaviour - the camel-sql producer, for instance, takes the statement to execute from a Camel header when one is present - so an injected header could redirect what a downstream step in the route does with data the route author never intended it to take from the message. Which sinks are reachable, and what the consequences are, depends entirely on what the route does after the unmarshal step. The camel-mail consumer already applied a header filter strategy on its own inbound path, so this was the parallel inbound path into the same component that the earlier hardening did not cover. The affected copy is reached only when headersInline is enabled, which is not the default: with the default setting the MIME headers are surfaced as attachments rather than as message headers, and are not affected. The behaviour dates back to the introduction of the data format in 2.17.0 and was present on every release line until this fix. 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, leave headersInline at its default of false where the inline headers are not needed, since the copy is only reached when it is enabled. Where it must stay enabled, strip Camel-internal headers immediately after the unmarshal step, for example with removeHeaders(“Camel*”) placed before any processor or producer that reads control headers, and do not unmarshal MIME content from an untrusted sender into a route that dispatches on header values. As defence in depth, treat the header names of any MIME message arriving from outside the trust boundary as untrusted input.

What

Improper input validation vulnerability in Apache Camel. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 2.17.0 before 4.14.9, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.4, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.0. The camel-mail component ships a MimeMultipart data format that can unmarshal a MIME multipart message. When it is configured with headersInline set to true, the unmarshal path copies the MIME headers of the incoming message onto the Camel message: it enumerates every header that is not one of the three standard ones it generates itself - Message-ID, MIME-Version and Content-Type - and calls setHeader for each, applying no HeaderFilterStrategy. The names of those MIME headers come from the message being unmarshalled, so a sender able to influence the message could place a header whose name falls in the Camel-internal namespace and have it set on the Exchange. Camel components read control headers from that namespace to override their configured behaviour - the camel-sql producer, for instance, takes the statement to execute from a Camel header when one is present - so an injected header could redirect what a downstream step in the route does with data the route author never intended it to take from the message. Which sinks are reachable, and what the consequences are, depends entirely on what the route does after the unmarshal step. The camel-mail consumer already applied a header filter strategy on its own inbound path, so this was the parallel inbound path into the same component that the earlier hardening did not cover. The affected copy is reached only when headersInline is enabled, which is not the default: with the default setting the MIME headers are surfaced as attachments rather than as message headers, and are not affected. The behaviour dates back to the introduction of the data format in 2.17.0 and was present on every release line until this fix. 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, leave headersInline at its default of false where the inline headers are not needed, since the copy is only reached when it is enabled. Where it must stay enabled, strip Camel-internal headers immediately after the unmarshal step, for example with removeHeaders(“Camel*”) placed before any processor or producer that reads control headers, and do not unmarshal MIME content from an untrusted sender into a route that dispatches on header values. As defence in depth, treat the header names of any MIME message arriving from outside the trust boundary as untrusted input.

Why

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

Improper input validation vulnerability in Apache Camel. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 2.17.0 before 4.14.9, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.4, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.0. The camel-mail component ships a MimeMultipart data format that can unmarshal a MIME multipart message. When it is configured with headersInline set to true, the unmarshal path copies the MIME headers of the incoming message onto the Camel message: it enumerates every header that is not one of the three standard ones it generates itself - Message-ID, MIME-Version and Content-Type - and calls setHeader for each, applying no HeaderFilterStrategy. The names of those MIME headers come from the message being unmarshalled, so a sender able to influence the message could place a header whose name falls in the Camel-internal namespace and have it set on the Exchange. Camel components read control headers from that namespace to override their configured behaviour - the camel-sql producer, for instance, takes the statement to execute from a Camel header when one is present - so an injected header could redirect what a downstream step in the route does with data the route author never intended it to take from the message. Which sinks are reachable, and what the consequences are, depends entirely on what the route does after the unmarshal step. The camel-mail consumer already applied a header filter strategy on its own inbound path, so this was the parallel inbound path into the same component that the earlier hardening did not cover. The affected copy is reached only when headersInline is enabled, which is not the default: with the default setting the MIME headers are surfaced as attachments rather than as message headers, and are not affected. The behaviour dates back to the introduction of the data format in 2.17.0 and was present on every release line until this fix. 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, leave headersInline at its default of false where the inline headers are not needed, since the copy is only reached when it is enabled. Where it must stay enabled, strip Camel-internal headers immediately after the unmarshal step, for example with removeHeaders(“Camel*”) placed before any processor or producer that reads control headers, and do not unmarshal MIME content from an untrusted sender into a route that dispatches on header values. As defence in depth, treat the header names of any MIME message arriving from outside the trust boundary as untrusted input.

Why

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.

Public PoC / exploit material
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
None recorded

No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.

Likely attack path
a network path → Improper Input Validation → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Network
Privileges required
None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary
Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.
CWE-20 ↗

CWE-20: Improper Input Validation. The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

CVSS vector
?CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.

AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CLowConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
NetworkUnauthenticatedCWE-20
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-64953Official EUVD mapping

Improper input validation vulnerability in Apache Camel. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 2.17.0 before 4.14.9, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.4, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.0. The camel-mail component ships a MimeMultipart data format that can unmarshal a MIME multipart message. When it is configured with headersInline set to true, the unmarshal path copies the MIME headers of the incoming message onto the Camel message: it enumerates every header that is not one of the three standard ones it generates itself - Message-ID, MIME-Version and Content-Type - and calls setHeader for each, applying no HeaderFilterStrategy. The names of those MIME headers come from the message being unmarshalled, so a sender able to influence the message could place a header whose name falls in the Camel-internal namespace and have it set on the Exchange. Camel components read control headers from that namespace to override their configured behaviour - the camel-sql producer, for instance, takes the statement to execute from a Camel header when one is present - so an injected header could redirect what a downstream step in the route does with data the route author never intended it to take from the message. Which sinks are reachable, and what the consequences are, depends entirely on what the route does after the unmarshal step. The camel-mail consumer already applied a header filter strategy on its own inbound path, so this was the parallel inbound path into the same component that the earlier hardening did not cover. The affected copy is reached only when headersInline is enabled, which is not the default: with the default setting the MIME headers are surfaced as attachments rather than as message headers, and are not affected. The behaviour dates back to the introduction of the data format in 2.17.0 and was present on every release line until this fix. 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, leave headersInline at its default of false where the inline headers are not needed, since the copy is only reached when it is enabled. Where it must stay enabled, strip Camel-internal headers immediately after the unmarshal step, for example with removeHeaders(“Camel*”) placed before any processor or producer that reads control headers, and do not unmarshal MIME content from an untrusted sender into a route that dispatches on header values. As defence in depth, treat the header names of any MIME message arriving from outside the trust boundary as untrusted input.

Official EUVD record ↗
BSI · German · WID-SEC-2026-2983Apache Camel: Mehrere Schwachstellen

Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Apache Camel ausnutzen, um Sicherheitsvorkehrungen zu umgehen, Daten zu manipulieren oder sensible Informationen offenzulegen.

Official advisory ↗
Cyber Security Agency of Singapore · English · CSA-SB-20260826Security Bulletin 26 Aug 2026

The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore included this CVE in its official Security Bulletin 26 Aug 2026, published on 26 August 2026. Open the linked bulletin for the product, severity and reference information published in that issue.

Official advisory ↗
JVN iPedia · Japanese · JVNDB-2026-030790Apache Software FoundationのApache Camelにおける入力確認に関する脆弱性

Apache Camelの不適切な入力検証の脆弱性です。この問題は、Apache Camelのバージョン2.17.0から4.14.9未満、4.15.0から4.18.4未満、4.19.0から4.22.0未満に影響を及ぼします。camel-mailコンポーネントは、MIMEマルチパートメッセージをアンマーシャルできるMimeMultipartデータフォーマットを搭載しています。headersInlineがtrueに設定されている場合、アンマーシャルの処理経路は受信したメッセージのMIMEヘッダーをCamelメッセージにコピーします。これは、自身で生成する3つの標準ヘッダー（Message-ID、MIME-Version、Content-Type）以外のすべてのヘッダーを列挙し、それぞれに対してsetHeaderを呼び出すものであり、HeaderFilterStrategyを適用しません。これらのMIMEヘッダーの名前はアンマーシャルされるメッセージから取られるため、送信者がメッセージに影響を与えられる場合、Camel内部の名前空間に該当する名前のヘッダーを差し込み、Exchangeに設定させることが可能です。Camelコンポーネントはこの名前空間の制御ヘッダーを読み取り、設定された動作をオーバーライドします。例えば、camel-sqlプロデューサーはCamelヘッダーが存在する場合に実行するSQL文をヘッダーから取得します。そのため、差し込まれたヘッダーにより、ルートの作成者が意図していないメッセージからのデータを下流の処理段階で扱わせることが可能になります。到達可能なシンクや影響は、アンマーシャル後のルートの処理内容に完全に依存します。camel-mailコンシューマは既に自身の受信経路にはヘッダーフィルタリングを適用していましたが、本脆弱性はその強化が適用されていなかった同じコンポーネント内の並行する受信経路に関わるものでした。影響を受けるコピー処理はheadersInlineが有効な場合にのみ到達し、これはデフォルトではありません。デフォルト設定ではMIMEヘッダーはメッセージヘッダーとしてではなく添付ファイルとして表面化するため、影響を受けません。この挙動は2.17.0でデータフォーマットが導入された以降のすべてのリリースラインに存在し、本修正により対策されています。ユーザーには本問題を修正したバージョン4.22.0へのアップグレードが推奨されます。4.14.x LTSリリースを利用している場合は4.14.9へのアップグレードが推奨され、4.18.xリリースを使用している場合は4.18.4へのアップグレードが推奨されます。即時アップグレードが困難な場合は、headersInlineが不要な場合にはデフォルトのfalseのままにしてください。コピー処理はheadersInlineが有効な場合にのみ実行されます。headersInlineを有効にし続ける必要がある場合は、アンマーシャル処理後すぐにCamel-internalヘッダーを削除してください。例えば、制御ヘッダーを読むプロセッサやプロデューサの前にremoveHeaders("Camel*")を配置してください。また、信頼できない送信元からのMIMEコンテンツをヘッダー値で処理を分岐するルートにアンマーシャルしないでください。多層防御として、信頼境界外から到着するMIMEメッセージのヘッダー名はすべて信頼できない入力とみなすべきです。

Official advisory ↗
03

Patch and workaround

Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.

Status
?Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Patch available
Affected
Fixed
Red Hat build of Apache Camel 4.18.4 for Spring Boot 3.5.16
Action
Before applying this update, make sure all previously released errata relevant to your system have been applied. For details on how to apply this update, refer to: https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258
Workaround
No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 24 Aug 2026 · Last source change 25 Aug 2026, 19:35 UTC · CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCISA ADP
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-25
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-64953
Product sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates ↗
  1. Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.
    Before
    2.17.0 < 4.14.9; 4.15.0 < 4.18.4; 4.19.0 < 4.22.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
    After
    2.17.0 < 4.14.9; 4.15.0 < 4.18.4; 4.19.0 < 4.22.0 · Fixed: Before applying this update, make sure all previously released errata relevant to your system have been applied. For details on how to apply this update, refer to: https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258
    Red Hat Product Security ↗
  2. Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Awaiting fix to Patch available.
    Before
    Awaiting fix
    After
    Patch available
    Red Hat Product Security ↗
  3. Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed from remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-59230 to remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-59230.
    Before
    remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-59230
    After
    remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-59230
    Red Hat Product Security ↗
  4. Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Mitigation available to Patch available.
    Before
    Mitigation available
    After
    Patch available
    Red Hat Product Security ↗
  5. Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.
    Before
    camel-mail as a component of Red Hat build of Apache Camel 4 for Quarkus 3; camel-mail as a component of Red Hat build of Apache Camel for Spring Boot 4; camel-mail as a component of Red Hat Fuse 7
    After
    camel-mail as a component of Red Hat build of Apache Camel 4 for Quarkus 3; camel-mail as a component of Red Hat Fuse 7 · Fixed: Red Hat build of Apache Camel 4.18.4 for Spring Boot 3.5.16
    Red Hat Product Security ↗
  6. Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed from remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-59230 to remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-59230.
    Before
    remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-59230
    After
    remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-59230
    Red Hat Product Security ↗
  7. Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Awaiting fix to Mitigation available.
    Before
    Awaiting fix
    After
    Mitigation available
    Red Hat Product Security ↗
  8. Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: added vendor advisory: camel.apache.org/CVE-2026-59230.html.
    Before
    no authoritative guidance recorded
    After
    vendor advisory: camel.apache.org/CVE-2026-59230.html
    security@apache.org ↗
  9. SeveritySeverity changed from Unknown to Medium.
    Before
    Unknown
    After
    Medium
    CISA ADP ↗
  10. CVSS scoreCVSS score changed from not recorded to 6.5 (CVSS 3.1 · CISA ADP · CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N).
    Before
    not recorded
    After
    6.5 (CVSS 3.1 · CISA ADP · CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N)
    CISA ADP ↗
  11. ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-64953 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.
    Before
    not recorded
    After
    {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-64953"}
    ENISA EUVD ↗
  12. Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.
    CNA ↗
Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
CVE published
Fixed release recorded from official guidance
ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-64953↗Red Hat Product Security security advisory↗CVE authority or vendor reference↗Official CVE record (CNA and ADP data)↗NVD record↗
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
CVE
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
CVSS
Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
EPSS
Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
CWE
Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
CNA
CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
CISA ADP
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
NVD
National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
CERT / CSIRT
A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
PoC
Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
CSAF
Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
LoTL
Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2026-59230 · cve.blacktree.nl