| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| 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. |
| 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 messages and might lead to disk consumption by core dump files. |
| Sendmail Consortium's Restricted Shell (SMRSH) in Sendmail 8.12.6, 8.11.6-15, and possibly other versions after 8.11 from 5/19/1998, allows attackers to bypass the intended restrictions of smrsh by inserting additional commands after (1) "||" sequences or (2) "/" characters, which are not properly filtered or verified. |
| 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 "The only denial of service that is possible here is to fill up the disk with core dumps if the OS actually generates different core dumps (which is unlikely)... the bug is in the shutdown code (finis()) which leads directly to exit(3), i.e., the process would terminate anyway, no mail delivery or receiption is affected." |
| Sendmail 8.9.0 through 8.12.6 allows remote attackers to bypass relaying restrictions enforced by the 'check_relay' function by spoofing a blank DNS hostname. |
| 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, allowing attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code via a buffer overflow attack using messages, a different vulnerability than CVE-2002-1337. |
| Sendmail before 8.10.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service by sending a series of ETRN commands then disconnecting from the server, while Sendmail continues to process the commands after the connection has been terminated. |
| Sendmail before 8.6.7 allows local users to gain root access via a large value in the debug (-d) command line option. |
| The Sendmail 8.12.3 package in Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 does not securely create temporary files, which could allow local users to gain additional privileges via (1) expn, (2) checksendmail, or (3) doublebounce.pl. |
| The prescan function in Sendmail 8.12.9 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via buffer overflow attacks, as demonstrated using the parseaddr function in parseaddr.c. |
| 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. |
| 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 <LF>.<CR><LF> but some other popular e-mail servers do not. This is resolved in 8.18 and later versions with 'o' in srv_features. |
| 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 redirect traffic from one subdomain to another, resulting in a valid TLS session. This breaks the authentication of TLS and cross-protocol attacks may be possible where the behavior of one protocol service may compromise the other at the application layer. |
