CVE-2026-126610:詳細資料

CVE-2026-126610

7.4
/
高危
2026-11-11
09h17 +00:00
Authorization problems
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

Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.3.4 through 6.3.7, with a MySQL or MariaDB database and TlsMode=verify-full, does not hand the database client the CA file that TlsCaFile names when the file's name contains a character outside ASCII on Linux, or above U+00FF on Windows, which allows an attacker who can intercept the connection to the database server to read and modify the traffic between hMailServer and its database, by presenting, with MariaDB Connector/C 3.4.2 to 3.4.10 as the client, a certificate from any authority, its own included, for any name, and otherwise a certificate for the database server's name issued by any certificate authority in the system's trust store. The server converted the name for the client with the C runtime's conversion in the C locale, which gives an empty string for such a name, and then set no CA file at all, without an error, while certificate verification stayed on, so the client - MariaDB Connector/C, bundled on Windows and the distribution's on Linux - verified the certificate of a database server over the network against the system's trust store instead of the configured CA; Connector/C 3.4.2 to 3.4.10 (bundled on Windows in 6.3.4 to 6.3.6) went further and, with no CA file, took a certificate within its dates whose issuer it could not find, for any name, with neither its chain nor its name checked and no password proof, when the server offered first a sign-in method that hashes the password, which an attacker in the middle chooses (MariaDB's CONC-853, fixed in Connector/C 3.4.11), and Connector/C 3.4 accepted from a MariaDB 11.4 or later server a certificate the store did not vouch for when that server proved it held the account's password; on a connection it treats as local (127.0.0.1, ::1, a Unix socket, a named pipe, and localhost on Windows), Connector/C 3.4.1 and later checked neither the certificate's issuer nor its name, so that a local attacker able to stand in for the database server could present any certificate within its dates of its own making. The settings line of hmailserver --check-database still named the configured file, and the application log said the certificate had been checked. With MariaDB Connector/C 3.4.1 to 3.4.9 as the client - bundled on Windows in 6.3.4 to 6.3.6, and the client of Linux distributions that have not patched it - the missing CA file also met the precondition of CVE-2026-107819, so that a certificate issued for any other name by a trusted authority was enough to obtain the database password. On Linux the file was found only when the server ran on glibc under a locale whose character set holds the name's characters (a UTF-8 locale, or a legacy 8-bit one the system has, in whose bytes the file is then named); with no locale, LC_ALL=C or a locale the system lacks, and on Alpine (musl), the connection failed instead. The configuration is not the default: TlsMode defaults to prefer, which checks no certificate.

CVE 資訊

相關弱點

CWE-ID 弱點名稱 來源
CWE-295 Improper Certificate Validation
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.

指標

指標 評分 嚴重程度 CVSS 向量 來源
V3.1 7.4 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.

High

successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected.

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.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

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

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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