Medium [CVE-2026-95628] Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in Apache Camel Docling component
This medium-severity Apache Software Foundation advisory covers CVE-2026-95628 affecting Apache Camel Docling.
Aggregated and source-linked by VulniPulse. Data sources, validation and limitations.
VulniPulse record published Record updated
Get an email when Apache Software Foundation publishes the next one.
VulniPulse checks Apache Software Foundation's security advisories around the clock and emails you new ones with the severity, the fixed version and the vendor's link. First month free, then US$15/month; we email you before the first charge.
Summary
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in Apache Camel Docling component.
This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.15.0 before 4.18.5, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.2.
DoclingProducer builds the command line of the external docling tool and appends to it the custom arguments supplied in the CamelDoclingCustomArguments header, a list of strings whose flags the fix for CVE-2026-40047 restricted to an allowlist.
That fix also introduced validatePathSafety to keep path-like argument values inside the intended directory, but the method only looked for relative traversal: it rejected a value containing a traversal sequence such as../ and a value whose normalized form still held a.. element.
It never checked whether a value was an absolute path, and an absolute path without traversal segments contains neither, so it passed unchanged.
Every path-like value went through this check, whether it was a separate list element following its flag or was attached to the flag after an equals sign, so an absolute path was accepted in either form, for example as the directory given to the allowlisted --artifacts-path flag, which tells docling where to find its model artifacts.
- 4.15.0 before 4.18.5
- 4.19.0 before 4.22.2
Official advisory · high-confidence parse· fetched 2 days ago·verify at source
- 4.18.5
- 4.22.2
- 4.23.0
Official advisory · high-confidence parse· fetched 2 days ago·verify at source
Mitigation checklist
- The header belongs to the Camel header namespace, which consumers applying Camel's default header filtering, such as the JMS and Kafka consumers, remove from incoming messages, so the issue is reached where a route forwards externally influenced values into the header or where a consumer maps incoming headers without that filtering.
- Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.23.0, which fixes the issue.
- If users are on the 4.22.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.22.2.
- If users are on the 4.18.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.18.5.
- For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, do not build the CamelDoclingCustomArguments header from values that originate outside the deployment, remove that header from messages that arrive from outside before they reach a docling endpoint, and make sure that consumers which map incoming message headers drop the Camel header namespace, so that only the route itself chooses the custom arguments.
Official advisory · high-confidence parse· fetched 2 days ago·verify at source
More Apache Software Foundation advisories
- CVE-2026-95629Oct 26, 2026Apache Camel Docling path traversal
- CVE-2026-78163Oct 19, 2026Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted
- CVE-2026-40047Jul 6, 2026Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
- CVE-2026-111422Oct 26, 2026Apache Airflow SSH provider command injection
- CVE-2026-115748Oct 26, 2026**UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED** Authorization bypass in Apache Vysper, all versions
- CVE-2026-115721Oct 26, 2026**UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED** Unbounded allocation in XML parsing in Apache Vysper; all
Android app · Google Play
Monitor future Apache Software Foundation CVEs from your phone.
Choose a whole vendor or a precise platform, then receive matching security advisories by phone notification, email, or both. Coverage follows 34 official vendor sources and 160+ reviewed platform categories.
Discussion(0)
No comments yet. Share field notes, upgrade gotchas, or questions — verify against the vendor advisory before acting on community advice.
Sign in to join the discussion.