CVE-2026-40047 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-40047
Vulnerability Scoring

9.1
/10
Critical Risk

As a catastrophic security flaw, CVE-2026-40047 has severe implications, demanding immediate intervention.

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-2026-40047 Details

Status: Analyzed

Last updated: 🕒 08 Jul 2026, 15:06 UTC
Originally published on: 🕘 06 Jul 2026, 09:16 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 2 days

CVSS Release: version 3

CVSS3 Source

134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

CVSS3 Type

Secondary

CVSS3 Vector

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

CVE-2026-40047 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-40047: Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') vulnerability in Apache Camel Docling component. The camel-docling component invokes the external `docling` command-line tool by assembling an argument list in DoclingProducer and executing it through java.lang.ProcessBuilder. Custom CLI arguments supplied through the `CamelDoclingCustomArguments` exchange header (a List<String>) were appended to that argument list with insufficient validation: the original implementation relied on a denylist of disallowed flags and only rejected path values that contained a literal `../` sequence. As a result, a Camel route that forwards externally-influenced data into the `CamelDoclingCustomArguments` header (or into the path-bearing headers used to build the invocation) could cause the producer to pass unrecognized or unintended `docling` CLI flags to the subprocess, and could supply path-like argument values that resolved outside the intended directory through traversal sequences not caught by the literal `../` check. Because Camel itself builds the `docling` invocation from these values, the component is responsible for constraining them, and the weak validation allowed CLI-argument injection and directory traversal in the arguments passed to the external tool. The invocation uses the list-based form of ProcessBuilder, so a shell does not interpret the argument values; OS command injection through shell metacharacters was not possible, and the metacharacter rejection added by the fix is defense-in-depth. This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.15.0 before 4.18.3. Users are recommended to upgrade to a release that contains the CAMEL-23212 fix. On the mainline the fix is included from Apache Camel 4.19.0 (and later releases such as 4.20.0). For users on the 4.18.x LTS releases stream, upgrade to 4.18.3. The fix replaces the denylist with a strict allowlist of recognized `docling` CLI flags (rejecting any unrecognized flag, and rejecting producer-managed flags such as the output-directory flags), defensively rejects shell metacharacters in argument values, and normalizes path-like values with Path.normalize() before validating them so that traversal sequences which bypass a literal `../` check are detected. As defence in depth, route authors should avoid mapping untrusted message content into the `CamelDoclingCustomArguments` header and the path-bearing headers, and should strip Camel-internal headers from messages that arrive from untrusted producers.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2026-40047

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2026-40047 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-2026-40047

With low attack complexity and no required privileges, CVE-2026-40047 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-2026-40047, 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-2026-40047, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: High
    Exploiting CVE-2026-40047 can result in unauthorized access to sensitive data, severely compromising data privacy.
  • Integrity: High
    CVE-2026-40047 could allow unauthorized modifications to data, potentially affecting system reliability and trust.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2026-40047 does not impact system availability.

CVE-2026-40047 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-88

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

  • Parameter Injection CAPEC-137 An adversary manipulates the content of request parameters for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. Some parameter encodings use text characters as separators. For example, parameters in a HTTP GET message are encoded as name-value pairs separated by an ampersand (&). If an attacker can supply text strings that are used to fill in these parameters, then they can inject special characters used in the encoding scheme to add or modify parameters. For example, if user input is fed directly into an HTTP GET request and the user provides the value "myInput&new_param=myValue", then the input parameter is set to myInput, but a new parameter (new_param) is also added with a value of myValue. This can significantly change the meaning of the query that is processed by the server. Any encoding scheme where parameters are identified and separated by text characters is potentially vulnerable to this attack - the HTTP GET encoding used above is just one example.
  • Flash Parameter Injection CAPEC-174 An adversary takes advantage of improper data validation to inject malicious global parameters into a Flash file embedded within an HTML document. Flash files can leverage user-submitted data to configure the Flash document and access the embedding HTML document.
  • Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads CAPEC-41 This type of attack involves an attacker leveraging meta-characters in email headers to inject improper behavior into email programs. Email software has become increasingly sophisticated and feature-rich. In addition, email applications are ubiquitous and connected directly to the Web making them ideal targets to launch and propagate attacks. As the user demand for new functionality in email applications grows, they become more like browsers with complex rendering and plug in routines. As more email functionality is included and abstracted from the user, this creates opportunities for attackers. Virtually all email applications do not list email header information by default, however the email header contains valuable attacker vectors for the attacker to exploit particularly if the behavior of the email client application is known. Meta-characters are hidden from the user, but can contain scripts, enumerations, probes, and other attacks against the user's system.
  • HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) CAPEC-460 An adversary adds duplicate HTTP GET/POST parameters by injecting query string delimiters. Via HPP it may be possible to override existing hardcoded HTTP parameters, modify the application behaviors, access and, potentially exploit, uncontrollable variables, and bypass input validation checkpoints and WAF rules.
  • OS Command Injection CAPEC-88 In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.

Vulnerable Configurations

  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:4.15.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:4.15.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:4.16.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:4.16.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:4.17.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:4.17.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:4.17.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:4.17.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:4.18.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:4.18.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:4.18.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:4.18.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:4.18.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:4.18.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2026-40047: 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-2026-15668 – A vulnerability has been found in louisho5 picobot up to 0.2.0. This vulnerability affects the function WebTool.Execute of the file internal/agent/...
  • CVE-2026-15629 – A weakness has been identified in louisho5 picobot up to 0.2.0. Impacted is the function CreateSkill/GetSkill of the file internal/agent/tools/file...
  • CVE-2026-15628 – A security flaw has been discovered in zhayujie chatgpt-on-wechat CowAgent up to 2.1.1. This issue affects the function Vision._download_to_data_ur...
  • CVE-2026-15627 – A vulnerability was identified in nextlevelbuilder GoClaw up to 3.13.3-beta.3. This vulnerability affects the function handleNavigate of the file p...
  • CVE-2026-15626 – A vulnerability was determined in nextlevelbuilder GoClaw 3.13.3-beta.3. This affects the function writeFile of the file internal/providers/acp/too...