Progressive Robot hMailServer up to 6.3.6 improper authentication

CVSS Meta Temp Score
CVSS is a standardized scoring system to determine possibilities of attacks. The Temp Score considers temporal factors like disclosure, exploit and countermeasures. The unique Meta Score calculates the average score of different sources to provide a normalized scoring system.
Current Exploit Price (≈)
Our analysts are monitoring exploit markets and are in contact with vulnerability brokers. The range indicates the observed or calculated exploit price to be seen on exploit markets. A good indicator to understand the monetary effort required for and the popularity of an attack.
CTI Interest Score
Our Cyber Threat Intelligence team is monitoring different web sites, mailing lists, exploit markets and social media networks. The CTI Interest Score identifies the interest of attackers and the security community for this specific vulnerability in real-time. A high score indicates an elevated risk to be targeted for this vulnerability.
5.6$0-$5k2.01-

Summaryinfo

A vulnerability identified as problematic has been detected in Progressive Robot hMailServer up to 6.3.6. This vulnerability affects unknown code. This manipulation causes improper authentication. This vulnerability is tracked as CVE-2026-114478. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. No exploit exists.

Detailsinfo

A vulnerability has been found in Progressive Robot hMailServer up to 6.3.6 and classified as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is some unknown functionality. The manipulation with an unknown input leads to a improper authentication vulnerability. The CWE definition for the vulnerability is CWE-287. When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct. As an impact it is known to affect integrity. The summary by CVE is:

Insufficient preservation of the original sender in the forwarding of Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0 through 6.3.6 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to have mail they write, naming in its From an address at a domain the server hosts, delivered to other receivers as passing that domain's DMARC policy. When the server sent on a copy of mail that came from outside - an account's forward, a mail rule's forward, a Sieve redirect, a list's copy, or an alias or list expanding to an outside address - it could give the copy an SMTP identity in the organisation of the domain the copy's From names, whatever the message's origin: with the Sender Rewriting Scheme or the rewrite of the envelope sender on forwarding enabled (both off by default), an address at the forwarding domain; for a list, its bounce address; for a message with an empty envelope sender, none, under the server's own host name; and an envelope sender the message came with at a subdomain of a hosted domain was kept. Where that identity's SPF record authorises the server, other receivers' SPF check of the copy passed for a domain aligned with the From, and DMARC passed with it, although the message had not passed DMARC when the server received it. Exploitation needs a forward, redirect, alias or list that carries the hosted domain's mail to an outside address, and one of: SRS or the envelope rewrite enabled; a list whose bounce address is in the domain's organisation; an envelope sender at a subdomain whose SPF record authorises the server; or, for an empty envelope sender, an SPF record that authorises the server under its host name. The DKIM route to the same result is CVE-2026-107567.

It is possible to read the advisory at gitlab.com. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-114478 since 10/21/2026. The exploitation appears to be easy. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploitation doesn't need any form of authentication. The technical details are unknown and an exploit is not publicly available. The pricing for an exploit might be around USD $0-$5k at the moment (estimation calculated on 10/21/2026).

There is no information about possible countermeasures known. It may be suggested to replace the affected object with an alternative product.

Statistical analysis made it clear that VulDB provides the best quality for vulnerability data.

Productinfo

Type

Vendor

Name

Version

CPE 2.3info

CPE 2.2info

CVSSv4info

VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍

CVSSv3info

VulDB Meta Base Score: 5.6
VulDB Meta Temp Score: 5.6

VulDB Base Score: 5.3
VulDB Temp Score: 5.3
VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍

CNA Base Score: 5.9
CNA Vector (GitLab): 🔒

CVSSv2info

AVACAuCIA
💳💳💳💳💳💳
💳💳💳💳💳💳
💳💳💳💳💳💳
VectorComplexityAuthenticationConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
UnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock
UnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock
UnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock

VulDB Base Score: 🔒
VulDB Temp Score: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍

Exploitinginfo

Class: Improper authentication
CWE: CWE-287
CAPEC: 🔒
ATT&CK: 🔒

Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes

Availability: 🔒
Status: Not defined
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔒

0-DayUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock
TodayUnlockUnlockUnlockUnlock

Threat Intelligenceinfo

Interest: 🔍
Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍

Countermeasuresinfo

Recommended: no mitigation known
Status: 🔍

0-Day Time: 🔒

Timelineinfo

10/21/2026 Advisory disclosed
10/21/2026 +0 days CVE reserved
10/21/2026 +0 days VulDB entry created
10/21/2026 +0 days VulDB entry last update

Sourcesinfo

Advisory: gitlab.com
Status: Not defined

CVE: CVE-2026-114478 (🔒)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2026-114478
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-424867

Entryinfo

Created: 10/21/2026 18:04
Changes: 10/21/2026 18:04 (61)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103

Statistical analysis made it clear that VulDB provides the best quality for vulnerability data.

Discussion

No comments yet. Languages: en.

Please log in to comment.

Do you need the next level of professionalism?

Upgrade your account now!