Summary
Apache Camel's Azure Files component may construct remote file paths from directory-listing names without normalizing them or verifying that they remain inside the configured polling directory. If a remote service or an on-path attacker supplies a listing entry containing path components, Camel may read, delete, or rename files outside the intended directory using the endpoint's credentials.
Apache Camel's Azure Files component may construct remote file paths from directory-listing names without normalizing them or verifying that they remain inside the configured polling directory. If a remote service or an on-path attacker supplies a listing entry containing path components, Camel may read, delete, or rename files outside the intended directory using the endpoint's credentials.
Affected context
The issue occurs in Apache Camel remote-file consumers using the Azure Files component when a listing entry is treated as more than a single path segment. The consumer concatenates the configured directory with the reported name, while local work-directory protections and the jailStartingDirectory setting do not constrain this remote operand. Azure Files services may not normally return such names, but exposure can arise with malicious, compromised, multi-tenant, virtualized, or tampered remote services.
The issue occurs in Apache Camel remote-file consumers using the Azure Files component when a listing entry is treated as more than a single path segment. The consumer concatenates the configured directory with the reported name, while local work-directory protections and the jailStartingDirectory setting do not constrain this remote operand. Azure Files services may not normally return such names, but exposure can arise with malicious, compromised, multi-tenant, virtualized, or tampered remote services.
Exploit preconditions
- Attack surface: Apache Camel Azure Files remote-file consumer
- Required access: Ability to influence the remote directory listing, including through a malicious or compromised service or an on-path attacker able to alter an unauthenticated FTP-like listing channel where applicable
- Trigger point: Processing a listed file during polling
- Additional conditions: Retrieval is available in normal consumer operation; deletion or renaming also requires options such as
delete,move,preMove,moveFailed, or rename-based read locking - Why exploitation is possible: The reported name is concatenated into the remote path without lexical normalization or containment validation
- Attack surface: Apache Camel Azure Files remote-file consumer
- Required access: Ability to influence the remote directory listing, including through a malicious or compromised service or an on-path attacker able to alter an unauthenticated FTP-like listing channel where applicable
- Trigger point: Processing a listed file during polling
- Additional conditions: Retrieval is available in normal consumer operation; deletion or renaming also requires options such as
delete,move,preMove,moveFailed, or rename-based read locking - Why exploitation is possible: The reported name is concatenated into the remote path without lexical normalization or containment validation
Why this happens
The underlying bug is improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory, corresponding to CWE-22: Path Traversal. The consumer trusted a server-provided listing name, combined it with the configured directory, and used the resulting path for later remote operations without verifying that the resolved path remained beneath the intended directory. This insecure pattern allows path components in metadata to escape the configured logical boundary.
The underlying bug is improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory, corresponding to CWE-22: Path Traversal. The consumer trusted a server-provided listing name, combined it with the configured directory, and used the resulting path for later remote operations without verifying that the resolved path remained beneath the intended directory. This insecure pattern allows path components in metadata to escape the configured logical boundary.
Potential impact
- Camel may read files outside the configured polling directory.
- Camel may delete files outside the intended directory when deletion is enabled.
- Camel may rename or move files outside the intended directory when disposition or read-lock options permit it.
- Sensitive remote data may be disclosed through route processing or downstream storage.
- Files accessible to the endpoint account could be altered or removed.
- Camel may read files outside the configured polling directory.
- Camel may delete files outside the intended directory when deletion is enabled.
- Camel may rename or move files outside the intended directory when disposition or read-lock options permit it.
- Sensitive remote data may be disclosed through route processing or downstream storage.
- Files accessible to the endpoint account could be altered or removed.
General mitigation guidance
Mitigation focuses on enforcing the directory boundary at the point where remote paths are constructed and before every remote file operation.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Normalize remote path components before joining them with the configured directory.
- Reject names containing parent-directory components, absolute-path indicators, separators, or other unexpected structure when only a single filename is valid.
- Canonicalize or resolve the candidate path and require verified containment beneath the configured directory.
- Apply the same containment policy consistently to retrieval, deletion, renaming, failed-move handling, and read-lock operations.
- Treat remote listings as untrusted input rather than route-controlled data.
- Use endpoint credentials with only the minimum remote permissions required, preferably separating read-only consumers from workflows that delete or rename files.
Mitigation focuses on enforcing the directory boundary at the point where remote paths are constructed and before every remote file operation.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Normalize remote path components before joining them with the configured directory.
- Reject names containing parent-directory components, absolute-path indicators, separators, or other unexpected structure when only a single filename is valid.
- Canonicalize or resolve the candidate path and require verified containment beneath the configured directory.
- Apply the same containment policy consistently to retrieval, deletion, renaming, failed-move handling, and read-lock operations.
- Treat remote listings as untrusted input rather than route-controlled data.
- Use endpoint credentials with only the minimum remote permissions required, preferably separating read-only consumers from workflows that delete or rename files.
How teams detect issues like this
Detection can combine source review, automated analysis, and runtime policy controls:
- Search for remote path construction based on directory-listing names without normalization or containment checks.
- Review calls to path-joining, concatenation, retrieval, deletion, and rename APIs for untrusted filename input.
- Flag assumptions that a remote listing always contains a single path segment.
- Add tests covering parent-directory components, absolute paths, separators, encoded traversal forms, and unexpected virtual-filesystem syntax.
- Monitor consumer activity for access, deletion, or rename operations outside approved remote directory prefixes.
- Use static analysis or automated code-review rules that identify filesystem or remote-file operations lacking boundary validation.
Detection can combine source review, automated analysis, and runtime policy controls:
- Search for remote path construction based on directory-listing names without normalization or containment checks.
- Review calls to path-joining, concatenation, retrieval, deletion, and rename APIs for untrusted filename input.
- Flag assumptions that a remote listing always contains a single path segment.
- Add tests covering parent-directory components, absolute paths, separators, encoded traversal forms, and unexpected virtual-filesystem syntax.
- Monitor consumer activity for access, deletion, or rename operations outside approved remote directory prefixes.
- Use static analysis or automated code-review rules that identify filesystem or remote-file operations lacking boundary validation.
Sources
| Source | Link |
|---|---|
| camel. | camel.apache.org/ |
| github. | github.com/ |
| github. | github.com/ |
| github. | github.com/ |
| github. | github.com/ |
| issues. | issues.apache.org/ |
| github. | github.com/ |
