Skip to content

Vendor

sendmail vulnerabilities

33 published CVES affecting sendmail, from public sources (CVE.org, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS, OSV).

Total
33
Critical
0
High
16
Medium
12
Low
5
Unscored
0
CISA KEV
0
Atom feed of sendmail alerts

Products

Latest sendmail CVEs

Newest publication first · page 1 of 2

  1. MediumCVSS 5.3

    sendmail through 8.17.2 allows SMTP smuggling in certain configurations. Remote attackers can use a published exploitation technique to inject e-mail messages with a spoofed MAIL FROM address, allowing bypass of an SPF protection mechanism. This occurs because sendmail supports <...

  2. HighCVSS 7.4

    ALPACA is an application layer protocol content confusion attack, exploiting TLS servers implementing different protocols but using compatible certificates, such as multi-domain or wildcard certificates. A MiTM attacker having access to victim's traffic at the TCP/IP layer can re...

  3. LowCVSS 1.9

    The sm_close_on_exec function in conf.c in sendmail before 8.14.9 has arguments in the wrong order, and consequently skips setting expected FD_CLOEXEC flags, which allows local users to access unintended high-numbered file descriptors via a custom mail-delivery program.

  4. HighCVSS 7.5

    sendmail before 8.14.4 does not properly handle a '\0' character in a Common Name (CN) field of an X.509 certificate, which (1) allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof arbitrary SSL-based SMTP servers via a crafted server certificate issued by a legitimate Certification Autho...

  5. HighCVSS 7.8

    Unspecified vulnerability in HP-UX B.11.00 and B.11.11, when running sendmail 8.9.3 or 8.11.1; and HP-UX B.11.23 when running sendmail 8.11.1; allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via unknown attack vectors. NOTE: due to the lack of details from HP, it is not know...

  6. MediumCVSS 4.3

    The version of Sendmail 8.13.1-2 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 Update 4 and earlier does not reject the "localhost.localdomain" domain name for e-mail messages that come from external hosts, which might allow remote attackers to spoof messages.

  7. HighCVSS 7.5

    Use-after-free vulnerability in Sendmail before 8.13.8 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a long "header line", which causes a previously freed variable to be referenced. NOTE: the original developer has disputed the severity of this issue, saying "T...

  8. MediumCVSS 5.0

    Sendmail before 8.13.7 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via deeply nested, malformed multipart MIME messages that exhaust the stack during the recursive mime8to7 function for performing 8-bit to 7-bit conversion, which prevents Sendmail from delivering queued...

  9. HighCVSS 7.6 EPSS 28.7%

    Signal handler race condition in Sendmail 8.13.x before 8.13.6 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by triggering timeouts in a way that causes the setjmp and longjmp function calls to be interrupted and modify unexpected memory locations.

  10. HighCVSS 10.0 EPSS 72.6% Public exploit

    Buffer overflow in Sendmail 5.79 to 8.12.7 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via certain formatted address fields, related to sender and recipient header comments as processed by the crackaddr function of headers.c.

  11. MediumCVSS 5.0

    The DNS map code in Sendmail 8.12.8 and earlier, when using the "enhdnsbl" feature, does not properly initialize certain data structures, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (process crash) via an invalid DNS response that causes Sendmail to free incorrect...

  12. HighCVSS 10.0 EPSS 38.8% Public exploit

    The prescan() function in the address parser (parseaddr.c) in Sendmail before 8.12.9 does not properly handle certain conversions from char and int types, which can cause a length check to be disabled when Sendmail misinterprets an input value as a special "NOCHAR" control value,...

Sources: CVE.org, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS, OSV and public exploit-reference metadata. Product matching comes from the published CVE records. A proof-of-concept means public code exists; it is not evidence of exploitation.