VulnerabilityPublished 1 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-42588: Apache ActiveMQ Broker · Improper Input Validation

Affects Apache ActiveMQ BrokerSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 6.2.6 or 5.19.7 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 54% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.2.6, 5.19.7

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 Jun 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), GitHub proofs of concept, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 30 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade Apache ActiveMQ Broker and Apache ActiveMQ All and Apache ActiveMQ and Apache Software Foundation/org.apache.activemq:activemq-broker and Apache Software Foundation/org.apache.activemq:activemq-all and Apache Software Foundation/org.apache.activemq:apache-activemq to 6.2.6 or 5.19.7; org.apache.activemq/activemq-broker to 5.19.7.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Software FoundationApache ActiveMQ Broker	Affected >=6.0.0 <6.2.6	Fixed in 6.2.6
Apache Software FoundationApache ActiveMQ Broker	Affected <5.19.7	Fixed in 5.19.7
Apache Software FoundationApache ActiveMQ All	Affected >=6.0.0 <6.2.6	Fixed in 6.2.6
Apache Software FoundationApache ActiveMQ All	Affected <5.19.7	Fixed in 5.19.7
Apache Software FoundationApache ActiveMQ	Affected >=6.0.0 <6.2.6	Fixed in 6.2.6
Apache Software FoundationApache ActiveMQ	Affected <5.19.7	Fixed in 5.19.7

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

If you cannot patch yet, restrict access to the Jolokia JMX-HTTP bridge to trusted users only and monitor for suspicious activity. Avoid exposing the broker's management interfaces to untrusted networks. Follow any additional guidance from Apache Software Foundation advisories once published.

Description

Improper Input Validation, Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') vulnerability in Apache ActiveMQ Broker, Apache ActiveMQ All, Apache ActiveMQ. Apache ActiveMQ Classic exposes the Jolokia JMX-HTTP bridge at /api/jolokia/ on the web console. The default Jolokia access policy permits exec operations on all ActiveMQ MBeans (org.apache.activemq:*), including BrokerService.addNetworkConnector(String). An authenticated attacker can invoke these operations with a crafted discovery URI that triggers the VM transport's brokerConfig parameter using the "masterslave:// " URL which can allow loading a Spring XML application context using ResourceXmlApplicationContext. Because Spring's ResourceXmlApplicationContext instantiates all singleton beans before the BrokerService validates the configuration, arbitrary code execution occurs on the broker's JVM through bean factory methods such as Runtime.exec(). This issue affects Apache ActiveMQ Broker: before 5.19.7, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.6; Apache ActiveMQ All: before 5.19.7, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.6; Apache ActiveMQ: before 5.19.7, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.6. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 5.19.7 or 6.2.6, which fixes the issue.

Impact

An authenticated attacker can execute arbitrary code on the Apache ActiveMQ Broker's JVM, potentially compromising the broker's confidentiality and integrity. This could allow the attacker to run malicious commands or code within the broker environment. The vulnerability does not impact availability directly but poses a significant risk due to code execution capability.

Summary

CVE-2026-42588 is a vulnerability in Apache ActiveMQ Broker caused by improper input validation (CWE-20) in the Jolokia JMX-HTTP bridge. This allows authenticated users to perform exec operations on all ActiveMQ MBeans, including the BrokerService.addNetworkConnector method. By crafting a discovery URI with a specific brokerConfig parameter, an attacker can cause the broker to load a malicious Spring XML application context. This leads to arbitrary code execution on the broker's JVM through bean factory methods such as Runtime.exec(). The vulnerability affects Apache ActiveMQ Broker versions prior to 5.19.7 and version 6.0.0. The CVSS v3.1 base score is 8.1 (High), with network attack vector, low attack complexity, requiring privileges, no user interaction, and high impact on confidentiality and integrity but no impact on availability.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
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.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code (Code Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #10OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
Implementation · Input Validation
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (opens in a new tab)
Code Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Jul 2026, 09:56 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-20, CWE-94

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats