CVE-2026-101259 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-101259
Vulnerability Scoring

5.3
/10
Significant Risk

Security assessments indicate that CVE-2026-101259 presents a notable risk, potentially requiring prompt mitigation.

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity: Low
    Exploits can be performed without significant complexity or special conditions.
  • Attack Vector: Network
    Vulnerability is exploitable over a network without physical access.
  • Privileges Required: None
    No privileges are required for exploitation.
  • Scope: Unchanged
    Exploit remains within the originally vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2026-101259 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Published on: 26 Oct 2026, 09:16 UTC

CVSS Release: version 3

CVSS3 Source

security@apache.org

CVSS3 Type

Secondary

CVSS3 Vector

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

CVE-2026-101259 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-101259: Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information vulnerability in Apache Camel CoAP component. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.0.0 before 4.18.5, from 4.19.0 before 4.22.2. When the CoAP consumer could not build its response once the route had completed, CamelCoapResource caught the resulting exception and sent its message back to the CoAP client as the payload of a 5.00 Internal Server Error response. The typical case is a type conversion failure: the consumer converts the final message body to the byte[] payload, and the CamelCoapMaxAge and CamelCoapETag headers to their types, after the route has returned, and therefore outside the route's error handler. On the affected releases the message of such a failure names the class of the value being converted, carries the value's string form, and ends with the class name and message of the underlying cause, so a remote CoAP client could read internal detail about the deployment: class and package names, the string form of the value, such as the path of a file body, and whatever the cause carries, which in practice can include paths, host names and connection detail of a backend. The consumer had no option to suppress this, unlike the HTTP consumers, which offer a muteException option for that purpose. The exception raised by a failing route was not sent: the consumer did not check whether the exchange had failed, and answered a route failure with 2.05 Content and whatever body the message held at that point. Reaching the disclosure therefore requires a route whose completed response a remote client can make unconvertible, which depends on how the route is written. 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. The 4.14.x releases stream and earlier, and the 4.15.x to 4.17.x and 4.19.x to 4.21.x release lines, reached end of life before this issue was resolved and will not receive a fix, so deployments on them must move to a supported release. The upgrade is enough on its own: the new muteException consumer option defaults to true on all three fixed release lines, so the error response carries no payload without any configuration change. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, make sure the response can always be built once the route has completed: convert the body to byte[] or String as the last step of each route that consumes from a coap endpoint, for example with convertBodyTo, give the CamelCoapMaxAge and CamelCoapETag headers only values of their own types, and add an onException handler that marks the failure as handled and sets the response body explicitly, so that a conversion failure is raised and replaced inside the route rather than in the consumer.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2026-101259

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2026-101259 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2026-101259

With low attack complexity and no required privileges, CVE-2026-101259 is an easy target for cybercriminals. Organizations should prioritize immediate mitigation measures to prevent unauthorized access and data breaches.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2026-101259, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2026-101259, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: Low
    CVE-2026-101259 could lead to minor leaks of non-critical information without major privacy breaches.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2026-101259 poses no threat to data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2026-101259 does not impact system availability.

CVE-2026-101259 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-209

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

  • Fuzzing for application mapping CAPEC-215 An attacker sends random, malformed, or otherwise unexpected messages to a target application and observes the application's log or error messages returned. The attacker does not initially know how a target will respond to individual messages but by attempting a large number of message variants they may find a variant that trigger's desired behavior. In this attack, the purpose of the fuzzing is to observe the application's log and error messages, although fuzzing a target can also sometimes cause the target to enter an unstable state, causing a crash.
  • Padding Oracle Crypto Attack CAPEC-463 An adversary is able to efficiently decrypt data without knowing the decryption key if a target system leaks data on whether or not a padding error happened while decrypting the ciphertext. A target system that leaks this type of information becomes the padding oracle and an adversary is able to make use of that oracle to efficiently decrypt data without knowing the decryption key by issuing on average 128*b calls to the padding oracle (where b is the number of bytes in the ciphertext block). In addition to performing decryption, an adversary is also able to produce valid ciphertexts (i.e., perform encryption) by using the padding oracle, all without knowing the encryption key.
  • Query System for Information CAPEC-54 An adversary, aware of an application's location (and possibly authorized to use the application), probes an application's structure and evaluates its robustness by submitting requests and examining responses. Often, this is accomplished by sending variants of expected queries in the hope that these modified queries might return information beyond what the expected set of queries would provide.
  • Blind SQL Injection CAPEC-7 Blind SQL Injection results from an insufficient mitigation for SQL Injection. Although suppressing database error messages are considered best practice, the suppression alone is not sufficient to prevent SQL Injection. Blind SQL Injection is a form of SQL Injection that overcomes the lack of error messages. Without the error messages that facilitate SQL Injection, the adversary constructs input strings that probe the target through simple Boolean SQL expressions. The adversary can determine if the syntax and structure of the injection was successful based on whether the query was executed or not. Applied iteratively, the adversary determines how and where the target is vulnerable to SQL Injection.

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2026-101259: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2026-75891 – The Kirki plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation via PHP Object Injection in all versions up to, and including, 6.2.5 via deser...
  • CVE-2026-110910 – ### Summary `qs.stringify` with `allowEmptyArrays: true` writes the key of an empty array without encoding it, even though keys are encoded by d...
  • CVE-2026-106174 – A improper locking vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 8.0.0, FortiOS 7.6.4 through 7.6.6 may allow an unauthenticated attacker with network access t...
  • CVE-2026-105946 – Out-of-bounds read in the QAuthenticator NTLM authentication handling in the Qt Network module in Qt Group Qt allows remote attackers to obtain sen...
  • CVE-2026-103359 – The PayDunya WooCommerce Payment Gateway WordPress plugin through 1.1.6 does not verify the authenticity of incoming payment notifications and, unt...