Use Apache Commons IO

FileUtils.writeByteArrayToFile(new File("pathname"), myByteArray)

Or, if you insist on making work for yourself...

try (FileOutputStream fos = new FileOutputStream("pathname")) {
   fos.write(myByteArray);
   //fos.close(); There is no more need for this line since you had created the instance of "fos" inside the try. And this will automatically close the OutputStream
}

That's not how it works. a java.io.File object is a light wrapper: Check out the source code - it's got a String field that contains the path and that is all it has aside from some bookkeeping stuff.

It is not possible to represent arbitrary data with a java.io.File object. j.i.File objects represent literal files on disk and are not capable of representing anything else.

Files.readAllBytes gets you the contents from the bytes, that's.. why the method has that name.

The usual solution is that a method in some library that takes a File is overloaded; there will also be a method that takes a byte[], or, if that isn't around, a method that takes an InputStream (you can make an IS from a byte[] easily: new ByteArrayInputStream(byteArr) will do the job).

If the API you are using doesn't contain any such methods, it's a bad API and you should either find something else, or grit your teeth and accept that you're using a bad API, with all the workarounds that this implies, including having to save bytes to disk just to satisfy the asinine API.

But look first; I bet there is a byte[] and/or InputStream variant (or possibly URL or ByteBuffer or ByteStream or a few other more exotic variants).

Try with this:

Copyfinal InputStreamSource fileStreamSource = new ByteArrayResource(byteArrayFileObj);
helper.addAttachment("Some-file-name", fileStreamSource);

You're opening a new FileOutputStream on each iteration of the loop. Don't do that. Open it outside the loop, then loop and write as you are doing, then close at the end of the loop. (If you use a try-with-resources statement with your while loop inside it, that'll be fine.)

That's only part of the problem though - you're also doing everything else on each iteration of the loop, including checking for headers. That's going to be a real problem if the byte array you read contains part of the set of headers, or indeed part of the header separator.

Additionally, as noted by EJP, you're ignoring the return value of read apart from using it to tell whether or not you're done. You should always use the return value of read to know how much of the byte array is actually usable data.

Fundamentally, you either need to read the whole response into a byte array to start with - which is easy to do, but potentially inefficient in memory - or accept the fact that you're dealing with a stream, and write more complex code to detect the end of the headers.

Better though, IMO, would be to use an HTTP library which already understands all this header processing, so that you don't need to do it yourself. Unless you're writing a low-level HTTP library yourself, you shouldn't be dealing with low-level HTTP details, you should rely on a good library.