PULSE
EN VIVO21señales / 24h
FEED
ransomnova reclama a Marpatech · Technologyransomnova reclama a Canal 9 Litoral · AR · Telecommunicationransomqilin reclama a Evergreen Title · US · Financial Servicesransomplay reclama a Tax MT · MT · Business Servicesransomplay reclama a Kreysler & Associates · US · Business Servicesransomnova reclama a La Financière d'Orion (finorion) · FR · Financial Servicesransomchaos reclama a argonautms.com · RU · Technologyransomdragonforce reclama a One Community FCU · US · Financial Servicesransomqilin reclama a RehaVital Gesundheitsservice GmbH · DE · Healthcareransomnova reclama a Tèrra Aventura · PT · Hospitality and Tourismransomnova reclama a Koperasi Karyawan PT Aplikanusa Lintasarta · ID · Telecommunicationransomakira reclama a Novasport s.r.o. · CZ · Consumer Servicesransomakira reclama a Finer & Finer · Consumer Servicesransommorpheus reclama a Kyowa Singapore Pte Ltd · SG · Business Servicesransomnova reclama a Marpatech · Technologyransomnova reclama a Canal 9 Litoral · AR · Telecommunicationransomqilin reclama a Evergreen Title · US · Financial Servicesransomplay reclama a Tax MT · MT · Business Servicesransomplay reclama a Kreysler & Associates · US · Business Servicesransomnova reclama a La Financière d'Orion (finorion) · FR · Financial Servicesransomchaos reclama a argonautms.com · RU · Technologyransomdragonforce reclama a One Community FCU · US · Financial Servicesransomqilin reclama a RehaVital Gesundheitsservice GmbH · DE · Healthcareransomnova reclama a Tèrra Aventura · PT · Hospitality and Tourismransomnova reclama a Koperasi Karyawan PT Aplikanusa Lintasarta · ID · Telecommunicationransomakira reclama a Novasport s.r.o. · CZ · Consumer Servicesransomakira reclama a Finer & Finer · Consumer Servicesransommorpheus reclama a Kyowa Singapore Pte Ltd · SG · Business Services
← Todos los CVEs
CVE Watch8 jul 2026

CVE-2026-46585

Improper Input Validation, Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in Apache Camel Lucene Component. The camel-lucen

CVSS

7.5

Alto

EPSS

0.4%

p32

KEV

Exploit Today

10

0-100

Publicado: 6 jul 2026 · Última mod.: 8 jul 2026 · CWE-20 · CWE-639

EPSS · 30d
0.2%EPSS · 30 días0.4%
2026-07-062026-07-21
Descripción técnica

Improper Input Validation, Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in Apache Camel Lucene Component. The camel-lucene producer reads the search phrase from an Exchange header (LuceneConstants.HEADER_QUERY) whose value was the plain string QUERY (and RETURN_LUCENE_DOCS for HEADER_RETURN_LUCENE_DOCS). Because these names do not start with the Camel / camel prefix, HttpHeaderFilterStrategy - which blocks only the Camel header namespace on the HTTP boundary - let them pass from an inbound HTTP request straight into the Exchange. In a route that exposes a Lucene query operation behind an HTTP consumer (for example platform-http), any HTTP client could therefore set the QUERY header and have its value executed against the full-text index, overriding the query the route intended to run. Depending on what is indexed, this allows reading documents the request should not have access to (for example a match-all query returns the entire index, or the route's intended per-user filter can be replaced), and expensive regular-expression queries can consume significant CPU. No credentials are required when the HTTP consumer is unauthenticated. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.0.0 before 4.14.8, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.3, from 4.19.0 before 4.21.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.21.0, which fixes the issue. If users are on the 4.14.x LTS releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.14.8. If users are on the 4.18.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.18.3. After upgrading, routes that set the query via the raw header name must use CamelLuceneQuery (and CamelLuceneReturnLuceneDocs) instead of QUERY / RETURN_LUCENE_DOCS. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, strip the attacker-controllable headers before the Lucene producer and set the query from a trusted source (for example removeHeader('QUERY') and removeHeader('RETURN_LUCENE_DOCS'), then setHeader('QUERY', constant(...)) at the start of the route).

Referencias oficiales
CVEs relacionados
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExplotTítuloVis.
CVE-2026-632594.3 MED
0Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via user-supplied identifiers that reference scheduled query result data from Kibana Spaces the requester is not authorized to access.3h
CVE-2026-16422
0Insufficient validation of untrusted input in Certificate in Google Chrome on Linux prior to 150.0.7871.182 allowed an attacker in a privileged network position to perform domain spoofing via malicious network traffic. (Chromium security severity: High)3h
CVE-2026-16415
0Insufficient validation of untrusted input in Extensions in Google Chrome prior to 150.0.7871.182 allowed a remote attacker to spoof the contents of the Omnibox (URL bar) via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)3h
CVE-2026-16414
0Insufficient validation of untrusted input in Chromecast in Google Chrome prior to 150.0.7871.182 allowed a local attacker to potentially perform a sandbox escape via malicious network traffic. (Chromium security severity: High)3h
CVE-2026-653166.5 MED
0XXL-Job version 2.4.2 contains an insecure direct object reference vulnerability that allows authenticated users to read execution log content from job groups they are not authorized to access by supplying arbitrary sequential log IDs to the logDetailCat endpoint. Attackers can enumerate log records across all job groups by calling the logDetailCat endpoint with incremented logId parameter values, bypassing the permission check present in the sibling logDetailPage endpoint, and retrieve sensitive log content from restricted job groups.4h
CVE-2026-561477.1 ALT
0Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Kibana can lead to unauthorized information disclosure and case attachment integrity compromise via Privilege Abuse (CAPEC-122). An inconsistency in Kibana's file access authorization logic allows a low-privileged authenticated user to retrieve, modify, and delete case attachments that belong to feature areas they are not authorized to access. Because the access control check and the resource retrieval use different resolution mechanisms, an authenticated attacker with limited file management permissions can obtain the contents of, modify, or delete protected case attachments — such as those associated with Security Solution cases — without holding the privileges required to access those features.5h