CVE-2026-126618:詳細資料

CVE-2026-126618

5.3
/
中危
2026-11-11
09h17 +00:00
A07-Identif. and Authent. Fail
Network
2026-11-11
09h17 +00:00
指定 CVE 通知
掌握特定 CVE 的任何變更。
管理通知

CVE 描述

The auto-ban of Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0-B1 through 6.3.7 can be kept from banning an address after repeated failed logons, which allows a remote unauthenticated attacker who can connect from two or more addresses to go on guessing account passwords - over SMTP AUTH, IMAP and POP3, and over ManageSieve, CalDAV/CardDAV and the REST API where those are turned on (off by default) - without being banned. When the failed logons counted from one address reach MaxInvalidLogonAttempts (3 by default), the server clears that address's count, saves an IP range that refuses the address for AutoBanMinutes (60 by default) and drops the connection. The range is named "Auto-ban: " followed by the user name of the logon that reached the limit, and no two ranges may have the same name. The server chooses the name by checking candidates as written - the name, then the name with a number, a random suffix or a GUID added - and only then cuts it to the 100 characters the database column holds, so that with a user name of 90 characters or more every candidate is the same once cut. While one range named after such a user name stands, every later ban named after a user name with the same first 90 characters therefore fails at the database: no range is saved, the address is not refused, and, its count having already been cleared, it is given the next full set of attempts. A user name of 78 to 89 characters makes later bans fail in the same way: from the second, the third or the twelfth on, depending on its length and the database, or, from 78 to 85 characters, by chance. An attacker who has once had an address banned under such a name can in this way keep guessing passwords from any other address, ending each set of attempts with a logon under a name of that kind; each failed save is reported in the server's error log (as the database error HM5032, and from 6.2.19 also as HM6099). On SQL Server a user name holding characters outside the database's code page has the same effect at any length, because the check compared names in that code page; that save is refused by the server's own check of the name, with no database error, and is reported only from 6.2.19 (HM6099). A user name holding a NUL character, which the web services listener's HTTP Basic sign-in (off by default) carries from 6.3.3 and, on the Linux builds, IMAP LOGIN, offered as installed, from 6.3.0, makes bans fail at any length: on MySQL, MariaDB and PostgreSQL the statements that check the name and save the range end at the character, so that every ban named after such a name fails, from the first and from a single address, and, its count having already been cleared, the address is given the next full set of attempts; on SQL Server and SQL Server Compact the name is bound only as far as the character, so that while one range under the part before it stands, every later ban named after such a name fails. On SQL Server, and on MySQL and MariaDB for an account whose local part has nine characters or more, a guess at the account can itself carry a name of that kind, since those databases find an account under its address followed by spaces (and SQL Server also under one holding characters its comparison ignores), so that not even a MaxInvalidLogonAttempts of 1, which bans each failed logon under the name it gave, avoids it there.

CVE 資訊

相關弱點

CWE-ID 弱點名稱 來源
CWE-307 Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts
The product does not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts within a short time frame.

指標

指標 評分 嚴重程度 CVSS 向量 來源
V3.1 5.3 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Network

The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

None

The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Scope

Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

Low

There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

None

There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.

cve@gitlab.com

參考資料