VulnerabilityPublished 18 Sep 2026Updated 2 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-93569: Red Hat Build of Apache Camel 3.33.3.SP2 · Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests

Affects Red Hat Build of Apache Camel 3.33.3.SP2Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High.

Data as of 2 Nov 2026, 16:13 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (redhat)	CVSS 3.1	8.2

EPSS: 2.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 82% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to 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 18 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 2 Nov 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Build of Apache Camel 3.33.3.SP2io.netty/netty-codec-http2	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Build of Debezium 3.6netty-codec-http2	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat build of Quarkus 3.27.5.SP2netty-codec-http2	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat build of Quarkus 3.33.3.SP2netty-codec-http2	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat AMQ Broker 7netty-codec-http2	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat build of Apache Camel 4 for Quarkus 3netty-codec-http2	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

A fix is available. Refer to the Netty security advisory at https://github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories/GHSA-cg2g-fxr4-mg8m for fixed versions and remediation guidance. Users of Red Hat products incorporating Netty should consult the Red Hat advisory at https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-93569 for specific patch information and apply updates accordingly.

Description

A flaw was found in Netty. A remote unauthenticated attacker can exploit a vulnerability in Netty's HTTP/1 to HTTP/2 conversion process. When an HTTP/1 request includes both an absolute-form request-target and a conflicting Host header, Netty incorrectly prioritizes the Host header for the HTTP/2 :authority field, discarding the original request-target authority. This inconsistency can allow an attacker to bypass security controls in Netty-based proxies or gateways, potentially leading to unauthorized access, cache poisoning, or misrouting of requests.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 25 Oct 2026, 01:13 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats