Attack ChainAIDerived
Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain
-
AccessConnect as provisioned AS2 trading partner
-
ExploitSend concurrent requests to shared multi-partner server
-
ExecutionRace condition in shared ResponseMDN resolves wrong per-request key
-
ImpactMDN signed with another partner's private key / cross-partner material observed
Vulnerability Assessment
| Weakness |
CWE
ASVS 5.0
V14 - Data Protection Exposure of data element to wrong session
|
| Exploitation Conditions | Exploitation requires an Apache Camel AS2 server deployment that serves more than one trading partner with dynamically fetched per-request security keys (the keysAreDynamic path that reads keys from the HttpContext), all handled through a single shared ResponseMDN instance on the shared HttpProcessor. The flaw is triggered by concurrent or successive requests from different partners, so no attacker-crafted payload is needed. Limiting factors: single-partner deployments and deployments running a separate Camel context per trading partner are not exposed; the leak is timing-dependent (High attack complexity); affected versions are Camel 4.0.0 before 4.18.5 and 4.19.0 before 4.22.1; and in practice only a configured trading partner is positioned to observe another partner's material. |
| Impact | This is a genuine but moderate-priority confidentiality flaw, not a high-urgency remote code execution issue. The provided CVSS 3.1 vector (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N, base 6.5 Medium) tells a consistent story: network-reachable, no privileges or user interaction needed, but High attack complexity because the leak depends on a race between concurrent/successive requests on a shared ResponseMDN instance - timing the attacker cannot reliably force. No EPSS score, KEV listing, or public POC was provided, so there is no signal of active or widespread exploitation; exploitation status is 'no public exploit identified at time of analysis.' The confidentiality impact is rated High because private signing-key material can cross between trading partners, which is serious, but the condition arises from ordinary multi-partner traffic rather than a crafted attack, making this closer to an information-leak/integrity-of-attribution defect than a weaponizable intrusion vector. Note one tension to verify: the CVSS assigns PR:N, yet realistically only a provisioned AS2 trading partner is positioned to observe another partner's material, so effective exploitation presupposes being a configured partner on a multi-partner deployment - a meaningful real-world limiter not captured by PR:N. |
| Exploit ScenarioDerived | An AS2 server built on Apache Camel serves several trading partners with dynamically resolved per-request keys. Under concurrent or back-to-back requests, the shared ResponseMDN instance leaks one partner's signing material into another partner's exchange, so a Message Disposition Notification is signed with the wrong partner's private key and a partner may observe signing material that is not theirs. No public exploit code is identified; the condition is reached by normal concurrent traffic rather than a deliberately engineered attack. |
Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.
Alert meAnalysisAIv1 – Oct 19, 2026
Cross-partner signing-key confusion in the Apache Camel AS2 component (4.0.0 through 4.18.4 and 4.19.0 through 4.22.0) can cause a Message Disposition Notification to be signed with another trading partner's key when a multi-partner server handles concurrent or successive requests using dynamically fetched per-request keys. The issue is remotely reachable without authentication per the CVSS vector but has high attack complexity because exploitation depends on overlapping partner traffic through a shared ResponseMDN instance; it can expose signing material and misattribute receipts, with practical exposure limited to deployments serving multiple partners from one Camel context. No public exploit identified at time of analysis, and no KEV confirmation was provided in the supplied data.
RemediationAI
Vendor-released patch: upgrade to Apache Camel 4.23.0, or to 4.18.5 on the 4.18.x LTS stream and 4.22.1 on the 4.22.x LTS stream. The fixes are referenced by PRs https://github.com/apache/camel/pull/25641, https://github.com/apache/camel/pull/25869, and https://github.com/apache/camel/pull/25870, with the vendor advisory at https://camel.apache.org/security/CVE-2026-85296.html. If an immediate upgrade is not possible, the vendor-recommended workaround is to run a separate Camel context per trading partner so that no signing material is shared between partners; the trade-off is increased operational overhead and duplicated context resources, but it removes the cross-partner shared ResponseMDN condition. Single-partner deployments are not exposed according to the independent assessment, but should still schedule the upgrade; prioritize internet-facing multi-partner AS2 gateways that use dynamic per-request keys.
Affected VersionsENISA
Affected Packages
Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)
Affects your stack
Affects 1 package in euvd
Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.
Technical ContextAI · show details
Apache Camel's AS2 component implements EDI messaging over HTTP, including signed Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs) that confirm receipt. The root cause is CWE-488, Exposure of Data Element to Wrong Session: ResponseMDN is registered on the shared HttpProcessor and serves every request, but in affected versions dynamically fetched security material was written into instance fields when keysAreDynamic was set. Those fields include the signing algorithm, signing certificate chain, signing private key, decrypting private key, and validation certificate chain, so concurrent or successive requests from different partners could overwrite or observe each other's values. The upstream fix in PR 25641 makes the configured fields final and resolves per-request security material into local variables inside process(), never writing it back to the shared instance; the accompanying ResponseMDNPerRequestKeysTest asserts that per-request keys are not stored on the shared object. References to PRs 25869 and 25870 correspond to the fix/backport activity. Exploitation requires a multi-partner AS2 deployment using dynamic per-request keys and a shared ResponseMDN instance; single-partner deployments and deployments using a separate Camel context per trading partner are not exposed. The AC:H rating reflects the timing-dependent cross-request condition, while C:H and I:L reflect exposure of signing material and possible receipt misattribution without direct availability impact.
Know when Apache Camel gets its next vulnerability
- Watch products and get an email when something new is published
- Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
- Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources
No credit card · 7-day full trial
Severity by source
AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
Network-reachable with no fixed privilege to the component (PR:N) but High complexity (AC:H) due to the request-timing race; C:H for leaked private signing keys, I:L for mis-attributed MDN signatures, A:N.
Primary rating from Vendor (apache).
CVSS VectorVendor: apache
DescriptionCVE.org
Exposure of Data Element to Wrong Session vulnerability in Apache Camel AS2 component.
This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.0.0 before 4.18.5, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.1.
Signing material belonging to an individual request was stored in state that is shared across requests rather than confined to the request being processed. Where a deployment serves more than one trading partner, concurrent or successive requests could therefore observe each other's material, and a Message Disposition Notification could be signed with the key of a partner other than the one the receipt was for. The result is cross-partner key confusion: a receipt attributable to the wrong partner, and one partner's signing material used while handling another partner's exchange. AS2 deployments are typically multi-partner by design, so the condition is reached by ordinary concurrent traffic rather than by anything the attacker must arrange.
Upgrade to Apache Camel 4.23.0, which fixes the issue. Users on the 4.18.x LTS releases stream should upgrade to 4.18.5. Users on the 4.22.x LTS releases stream should upgrade to 4.22.1. Per-request signing keys are now confined to the request being processed in ResponseMDN. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, run a separate Camel context per trading partner so that no signing material is shared between them.
Threat Intelligence Overview
How this decision was reached
The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.
What every action level means
SSVC AssessmentENISA
Priority Score
Attack Technique
Information disclosure occurs when an application unintentionally exposes sensitive data that aids attackers in reconnaissance or directly compromises security.
More in Apache Camel
View allRemote code execution in Apache Camel's camel-coap component (versions 4.14.0-4.14.5, 4.18.0 before 4.18.1, and 4.19.0)
Unsafe Java deserialization in Apache Camel's camel-infinispan component allows arbitrary code execution when the ProtoS
Unauthenticated remote code execution affects the camel-hazelcast component of Apache Camel 4.0.0 through 4.18.4 and 4.1
Header-injection in the Apache Camel camel-atmosphere-websocket producer lets an external sender hijack WebSocket messag
Header-filter bypass in the Apache Camel Undertow component (4.11.0-4.14.8, 4.15.0-4.18.3, and 4.19.0-4.21.x) lets remot
Remote code execution in Apache Camel 3.18.0-4.14.5 and 4.15.0-4.18.1 stems from CXF and Knative HeaderFilterStrategy im
Message header injection in Apache Camel's camel-mail component (3.0.0 before 4.14.6 and 4.15.0 before 4.18.1) lets an a
Remote code execution via unsafe Java deserialization affects the camel-pqc component of Apache Camel 4.18.0-4.18.2 and
Unsafe Java deserialization in Apache Camel's camel-consul component (ConsulRegistry / ConsulRegistryUtils.deserialize)
Unauthenticated deserialization of attacker-controlled messages in Apache Camel's camel-jgroups consumer can lead to rem
Expression language injection in the Apache Camel dynamic-router-control endpoint allows a party who can place a message
Deserialization of untrusted data in the Apache Camel Spring Redis component (camel-spring-redis) allows an authenticate
EUVD-2026-104197
GHSA-ggr9-wchc-h5rx
NVD
CVE.org
EPSS
Vulnrichment
Exploit-DB