WaratekVRT Sign in
Reset
More filters (1)
Columns
Product undertow✕
Overview 5 matches · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
5matches 0protected0.0% 0exploited0.0% 0CISA KEV0.0% 0public PoC0.0% 0EPSS ≥ 0.50.0%
Protected by Waratek 0 0.0% Rule in development 0 0.0% Mitigation candidate 0 0.0% No exploit published 5 100.0%
Critical 5 100.0% High 0 0.0% Medium 0 0.0% Low 0 0.0% None 0 0.0% Unknown 0 0.0%
blocked by ARMR today 0 0.0% partly blocked 0 0.0% not blocked 5 100.0% not established 0 0.0% unrecorded 0 0.0%
Exploited 0 0.0% Working exploit published 0 0.0% Proof of concept only 1 20.0% Forecast only 0 0.0% No public exploit 4 80.0%
split by peak 3 / month
Jan 26Feb 26Mar 26Apr 26May 26Jun 26Jul 26Aug 26
5 matches Sign in to download these CVEs as CSV or JSON, or to follow them in a feed.
CVE Severity Published▾ Status Exploitation Description
CVE-2026-78329 Critical 2026-08-24 No exploit published No public exploit Improper input validation vulnerability in Apache Camel Undertow component. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.11.0 before 4.14.9, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.4, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.0. UndertowEndpoint defaulted its headerFilterStrategy field to the base HttpHeaderFilterStrategy and pushed that instance into the UndertowHttpBinding it creates lazily, overwriting the UndertowHeaderFilterStrategy that DefaultUndertowHttpBinding installs in its own constructor. Unless a deployment supplied a custom binding or an explicit headerFilterStrategy, the undertow-specific filtering therefore never executed on endpoint-configured routes: the strategy object was constructed and immediately replaced before it could be consulted. The consequence is that the legacy websocket. Exchange-header prefix was not filtered at the undertow transport boundary in either direction, so an undertow HTTP consumer mapped inbound wire headers of that form onto the Exchange, where an undertow WebSocket producer reads them as dispatch directives and can be made to deliver to a peer other than the one the route selected; and header names that undertow itself does not accept were mapped onto the Exchange rather than being skipped. Rest DSL consumers were never affected, because UndertowComponent assigns UndertowRestHeaderFilterStrategy explicitly, which extends the undertow strategy. This is not a regression of CVE-2025-30177: the base HttpHeaderFilterStrategy configures the inbound Camel-prefix filter itself, so the protection introduced by that advisory continued to work through the base class and was never lost. What the change did was leave the undertow strategy orphaned on the endpoint path, with the effect that two subsequent corrections written into it - one skipping header names undertow rejects, one filtering the legacy websocket. prefix in both directions - were applied to a class the endpoint no longer used and never took effect in the releases that shipped them. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.22.0, which fixes the issue. If users are on the 4.14.x LTS releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.14.9. If users are on the 4.18.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.18.4. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, configure the strategy explicitly rather than relying on the default, for example by binding an UndertowHeaderFilterStrategy in the registry and referencing it on the endpoint as undertow:http://0.0.0.0:8080/foo?headerFilterStrategy=#myStrategy, and additionally strip the dispatch headers at the trust boundary with removeHeaders(“websocket.*”). Note a residual limitation that upgrading does not remove: the undertow component deliberately keeps the websocket. values as part of its externally visible API contract, and UndertowProducer reads them with in.getHeader, which does not consult a HeaderFilterStrategy at all. The restored filtering is therefore defence in depth at the undertow transport boundary only. A route that carries an untrusted message from a non-undertow consumer into an undertow producer is not protected by this fix and must strip those headers itself.
CVE-2026-28369 Critical 2026-03-27 No exploit published No public exploit A flaw was found in Undertow. When Undertow receives an HTTP request where the first header line starts with one or more spaces, it incorrectly processes the request by stripping these leading spaces. This behavior, which violates HTTP standards, can be exploited by a remote attacker to perform request smuggling. Request smuggling allows an attacker to bypass security mechanisms, access restricted information, or manipulate web caches, potentially leading to unauthorized actions or data exposure.
CVE-2026-28368 Critical 2026-03-27 No exploit published No public exploit A flaw was found in Undertow. This vulnerability allows a remote attacker to construct specially crafted requests where header names are parsed differently by Undertow compared to upstream proxies. This discrepancy in header interpretation can be exploited to launch request smuggling attacks, potentially bypassing security controls and accessing unauthorized resources.
CVE-2026-28367 Critical 2026-03-27 No exploit published No public exploit A flaw was found in Undertow. A remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability by sending `\r\r\r` as a header block terminator. This can be used for request smuggling with certain proxy servers, such as older versions of Apache Traffic Server and Google Cloud Classic Application Load Balancer, potentially leading to unauthorized access or manipulation of web requests.
CVE-2025-12543 Critical 2026-01-07 No exploit published Proof of concept only A flaw was found in the Undertow HTTP server core, which is used in WildFly, JBoss EAP, and other Java applications. The Undertow library fails to properly validate the Host header in incoming HTTP requests.As a result, requests containing malformed or malicious Host headers are processed without rejection, enabling attackers to poison caches, perform internal network scans, or hijack user sessions.