VulnerabilityPublished 18 Sep 2026Updated 25 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-93576: Red Hat build of Apache Camel for Spring Boot 4 · CRLF Injection

Affects Red Hat build of Apache Camel for Spring Boot 4Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 2 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 19% 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:N/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
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: 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: 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 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.

ghsa-cr29-67c6-8878

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red HatRed Hat build of Apache Camel for Spring Boot 4	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Fuse 7	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 7	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Single Sign-On 7	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat's advisory directs users to the Netty GitHub security advisories for fixed versions and remediation guidance (https://github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories/GHSA-5vh9-c45f-rf7p). Users should upgrade to fixed versions of netty-codec-smtp as recommended by the vendor. Since this is a component-level vulnerability, remediation involves updating the affected Netty library. No additional mitigations are specified by Red Hat. Patch status is confirmed via the vendor advisory.

Description

A flaw was found in Netty netty-codec-smtp. The component does not properly validate Carriage Return (CR) and Line Feed (LF) characters in the SMTP command-name field. A remote attacker, if an application routes untrusted input into this field, can embed CR/LF characters to inject arbitrary SMTP commands. This can lead to SMTP command smuggling, allowing for unauthorized email relay or spoofing of sender/recipient addresses. While the impact is significant, the real-world exploitability is considered lower as applications typically do not place user-controlled data in the command-name field.

Impact

The vulnerability can lead to SMTP command smuggling, which may allow attackers to perform unauthorized email relay or spoof sender and recipient addresses. This impacts the integrity of email communications. There is no impact on confidentiality or availability. The exploitability is limited by the requirement that untrusted input must be routed into the SMTP command-name field, which is uncommon in typical applications.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Sep 2026, 03:11 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats