| 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. |
| 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." |
| A "potential buffer overflow in ruleset parsing" for Sendmail 8.12.9, when using the nonstandard rulesets (1) recipient (2), final, or (3) mailer-specific envelope recipients, has unknown consequences. |
| 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. |
| SunOS sendmail 5.59 through 5.65 uses popen to process a forwarding host argument, which allows local users to gain root privileges by modifying the IFS (Internal Field Separator) variable and passing crafted values to the -oR option. |
| Multiple unspecified vulnerabilities in sendmail 5, as installed on Sun SunOS 4.1.3_U1 and 4.1.4, have unspecified attack vectors and impact. NOTE: this might overlap CVE-1999-0129. |
| Sendmail 8.10.0 through 8.11.5, and 8.12.0 beta, allows local users to modify process memory and possibly gain privileges via a large value in the 'category' part of debugger (-d) command line arguments, which is interpreted as a negative number. |
| Sendmail before 8.12.1 does not properly drop privileges when the -C option is used to load custom configuration files, which allows local users to gain privileges via malformed arguments in the configuration file whose names contain characters with the high bit set, such as (1) macro names that are one character long, (2) a variable setting which is processed by the setoption function, or (3) a Modifiers setting which is processed by the getmodifiers function. |
| Sendmail before 8.12.1, without the RestrictQueueRun option enabled, allows local users to cause a denial of service (data loss) by (1) setting a high initial message hop count option (-h), which causes Sendmail to drop queue entries, (2) via the -qR option, or (3) via the -qS option. |
| 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. |
