VulnerabilityPublished 19 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-85248: Apache Camel · Race Condition

Affects Apache CamelSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium : upgrade to 4.22.1 or 4.18.5 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.22.1, 4.18.5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 19 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
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), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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 to 4.22.1 or 4.18.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Camelorg.apache.camel:camel-pqc	Affected >=4.19.0 <4.22.1	Fixed in 4.22.1
Apache Camelorg.apache.camel:camel-pqc	Affected >=4.12.0 <4.18.5	Fixed in 4.18.5
MavenApache Software Foundation/org.apache.camel:camel-pqc`pkg:maven/Apache Software Foundation/org.apache.camel:camel-pqc`Other threats	Affected >=4.12.0 <4.18.5 >=4.19.0 <4.22.1	Fixed in 4.18.5 4.22.1

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Apache Camel to version 4.18.5 if using the 4.18.x LTS stream, to 4.22.1 if using the 4.22.x LTS stream, or to 4.23.0 or later where the issue is fully resolved. For deployments unable to upgrade immediately, restrict the affected route to a single concurrent consumer to prevent concurrent use of the shared Signature instance.

Description

Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition') vulnerability in Apache Camel PQC component. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.12.0 before 4.18.5, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.1. The producer held a single java.security.Signature instance and used it for every exchange without synchronizing access. Signature is stateful and is not thread safe: update() accumulates the data to be signed or verified, and verify() consumes that accumulated state. With concurrent exchanges sharing one instance the update and verify calls of different messages interleave, so a verification can complete against data that belongs to another exchange, or against a partially accumulated buffer. The outcome is non-deterministic and includes a verification reporting success for a message whose signature was never actually checked, which defeats the guarantee the component exists to provide. Reaching it requires concurrent traffic through the same endpoint, which is the ordinary condition for a Camel route under load. 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. The Signature instance is no longer shared across concurrent exchanges. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, restrict the affected route to a single concurrent consumer so that no two exchanges use the instance at once.

Impact

The vulnerability can cause signature verification to incorrectly succeed for messages whose signatures were never properly checked, defeating the integrity guarantees provided by the PQC component. This undermines trust in message authenticity and could allow malicious or corrupted messages to be accepted as valid. Exploitation requires concurrent traffic through the same endpoint, which is common under load. There is no indication of known exploits in the wild.

Summary

The vulnerability arises because Apache Camel's PQC component holds a single java.security.Signature instance shared among all exchanges without synchronizing access. Since Signature is stateful and not thread-safe, concurrent usage causes interleaving of update() and verify() calls from different messages. This leads to non-deterministic verification results, including false positives where a message's signature is reported as valid without actual verification. The flaw affects Apache Camel versions >=4.12.0 <4.18.5 and >=4.19.0 <4.22.1. The issue is fixed in Apache Camel 4.18.5, 4.22.1, and 4.23.0 by no longer sharing the Signature instance across concurrent exchanges. Temporary mitigation involves limiting concurrency to a single consumer on the affected route.

CWE-362Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.
Architecture and Design
In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.
Architecture and Design
Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.
Architecture and Design
Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.11.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging Time-of-Check and Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) Race Conditions (opens in a new tab)
Leveraging Race Conditions (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 19 Oct 2026, 11:18 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-362

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats