Progressive Robot hMailServer up to 6.3.7 SSL Connection certificate validation

Summaryinfo

A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in Progressive Robot hMailServer up to 6.3.7. This affects an unknown function of the component SSL Connection Handler. The manipulation leads to certificate validation. This vulnerability is uniquely identified as CVE-2026-126609. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. No exploit exists.

Detailsinfo

A vulnerability was found in Progressive Robot hMailServer up to 6.3.7. It has been rated as problematic. This issue affects some unknown processing of the component SSL Connection Handler. The manipulation with an unknown input leads to a certificate validation vulnerability. Using CWE to declare the problem leads to CWE-295. The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate. Impacted is integrity. The summary by CVE is:

Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.2.25 through 6.3.7 on Windows, with a PostgreSQL database, the connection's sslmode require, verify-ca or verify-full, and a root certificate file named by PostgreSQLSslRootCert (from 6.2.25) or, with TlsMode=verify-full and neither PostgreSQL key set, by TlsCaFile (from 6.3.4), hands the file's name to libpq as bytes in the system's ANSI code page (up to 6.3.5 as Latin-1 bytes, which on code page 1252 are the code page's own for U+00A0 to U+00FF), and libpq looks for the file by those bytes and then hands the same bytes to OpenSSL, whose file opening on Windows reads a name as UTF-8 first and opens the file at that reading when one is there. When every byte of the name outside ASCII also reads as UTF-8 - for example U+00C3 U+00A9, the bytes C3 A9 on code page 1252, which are U+00E9 in UTF-8 - the database server's certificate was checked against the file at that other name whenever one was there, which allows a local attacker who can create that file but cannot change the configured one, as any user can by default beside a file an administrator keeps under ProgramData, or beside a folder directly under the system drive's root whose permissions the administrator restricted, and who can intercept the connection to the database server or stand in for it, to have hMailServer trust a certificate authority of the attacker's own and read and modify the traffic between hMailServer and its database, the database password included; the file alone, holding no authority that issued the database server's certificate, stops hMailServer from connecting to its database. The same applies in 6.3.4 through 6.3.7 to TlsCaFile when an Oracle MySQL client library has been put in place of the bundled MariaDB Connector/C, since that client opens the file through OpenSSL in the same way; the bundled MariaDB Connector/C opens the file in the code page and is not affected, and neither are the Linux builds. The configuration is not the default: by default no root certificate file is named.

It is possible to read the advisory at gitlab.com. The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2026-126609 since 11/11/2026. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The attack may be initiated remotely. No form of authentication is needed for a successful exploitation. 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 11/11/2026). The attack technique deployed by this issue is T1587.003 according to MITRE ATT&CK.

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

• Mail Server Software

Vendor

• Progressive Robot

Name

• hMailServer

Version

• 6.3.0
• 6.3.1
• 6.3.2
• 6.3.3
• 6.3.4
• 6.3.5
• 6.3.6
• 6.3.7

CPE 2.3info

• 🔒
• 🔒
• 🔒

CPE 2.2info

• 🔒
• 🔒
• 🔒

CVSSv4info

CVSSv3info

CVSSv2info

Exploitinginfo

Threat Intelligenceinfo

Countermeasuresinfo

Timelineinfo

Sourcesinfo

Entryinfo

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

Discussion