CVE-2026-53913
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedImproper Authentication, Missing Authentication for Critical Function, Not Failing Securely ('Failing Open') vulnerability in Apache Camel Keycloak Component. The KeycloakSecurityPolicy of camel-keycloak guards a route by running KeycloakSecurityProcessor.beforeProcess(), which performs three checks in sequence: it rejects a request that carries no access token, then - only if requiredRoles is non-empty - validates the roles, and - only if requiredPermissions is non-empty - validates the permissions. The actual cryptographic verification of the bearer access token (signature, issuer and expiry for a local JWT, or active-state and issuer for token introspection) is performed exclusively inside those role and permission checks. KeycloakSecurityPolicy defaults requiredRoles and requiredPermissions to empty - which is the documented 'Basic Setup' - so on a route configured that way the role and permission checks are skipped and the access token is therefore never verified. The token-presence check still rejects a missing token, but an invalid token is accepted: any non-null value in the Authorization: Bearer header - including an arbitrary string or a forged, unsigned JWT - passes the policy and the request reaches the protected route, with no signature, issuer or expiry check and no request to Keycloak. The token is read from the inbound request header because allowTokenFromHeader defaults to true. Because the normal reason to place a route behind this policy is that the route performs server-side work, the bypass results in unauthenticated access to that work; where the protected route forwards to a code-execution-capable producer, it can result in unauthenticated remote code execution. This defect is independent of CVE-2026-23552: that issue concerned the issuer claim and was fixed by adding a check inside the verification routine, but here the verification routine is not reached at all in the default configuration, so the defect remains. This issue affects Apache Camel: 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 4.18.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.18.3. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, configure a non-empty requiredRoles or requiredPermissions on every KeycloakSecurityPolicy so that the token-verification path is exercised, set allowTokenFromHeader to false where the token is not expected from the request header, or perform token verification at the framework layer ahead of the policy.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · low confidenceAffected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 4.15.0, < 4.18.3>= 4.19.0, < 4.21.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped4.18.34.21.0
4.21.0 (or 4.18.3 for 4.18.x users)
- Upgrade Apache Camel to version 4.21.0 if using version 4.19.0 or later, or upgrade to version 4.18.3 if using the 4.18.x release stream
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-53913 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-53913 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data