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-i
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 31/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 2.3% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 83.5% of all records.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: sendmail (Debian:12) 8.14.3-9.1; sendmail (Debian:4.0) 8.13.8-3+etch1; sendmail (Debian:5.0) 8.14.3-5+lenny1.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to sendmail (Debian:12) 8.14.3-9.1; sendmail (Debian:4.0) 8.13.8-3+etch1; sendmail (Debian:5.0) 8.14.3-5+lenny1 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
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 Authority, and (2) allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions via a crafted client certificate issued by a legitimate Certification Authority, a related issue to CVE-2009-2408.
- Published
- Jan 4, 2010
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 2.4% · 84th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-310
Report tools
Action score
31
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 30 / 40 · 7.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 1 / 30 · 2.4%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| sendmail | sendmail | cpe:2.3:a:sendmail:sendmail |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- sendmail sendmailup to 8.14.3 inclusive
- sendmail sendmail2.6
- sendmail sendmail2.6.1
- sendmail sendmail3.0
- sendmail sendmail3.0.1
- sendmail sendmail4.1
- sendmail sendmail4.55
- sendmail sendmail5
- sendmail sendmail5.59
- sendmail sendmail5.61
- sendmail sendmail5.65
- sendmail sendmail8.10
- sendmail sendmail8.10.0
- sendmail sendmail8.10.1
- sendmail sendmail8.10.2
- sendmail sendmail8.11.0
- sendmail sendmail8.11.1
- sendmail sendmail8.11.2
- sendmail sendmail8.11.3
- sendmail sendmail8.11.4
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian:12 | sendmail | before 8.14.3-9.1 | 8.14.3-9.1 |
| Debian:4.0 | sendmail | before 8.13.8-3+etch1 | 8.13.8-3+etch1 |
| Debian:5.0 | sendmail | before 8.14.3-5+lenny1 | 8.14.3-5+lenny1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | sendmail | before 0:8.13.1-6.el4 | 0:8.13.1-6.el4 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | sendmail-cf | before 0:8.13.1-6.el4 | 0:8.13.1-6.el4 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | sendmail-debuginfo | before 0:8.13.1-6.el4 | 0:8.13.1-6.el4 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | sendmail-devel | before 0:8.13.1-6.el4 | 0:8.13.1-6.el4 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | sendmail-doc | before 0:8.13.1-6.el4 | 0:8.13.1-6.el4 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client | sendmail-cf | before 0:8.13.8-8.el5 | 0:8.13.8-8.el5 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client | sendmail-doc | before 0:8.13.8-8.el5 | 0:8.13.8-8.el5 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client_workstation | sendmail | before 0:8.13.8-8.el5 | 0:8.13.8-8.el5 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client_workstation | sendmail-debuginfo | before 0:8.13.8-8.el5 | 0:8.13.8-8.el5 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client_workstation | sendmail-devel | before 0:8.13.8-8.el5 | 0:8.13.8-8.el5 |
Same product
sendmail: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2002-1337Buffer overflow in Sendmail 5.79 to 8.12.7 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via certain formatted address fields, related t62This week
- CVE-2003-0161The prescan() function in the address parser (parseaddr.c) in Sendmail before 8.12.9 does not properly handle certain conversions from char 52Plan
- CVE-2006-0058Signal handler race condition in Sendmail 8.13.x before 8.13.6 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by triggering timeouts in a39Monitor
- CVE-2006-4434Use-after-free vulnerability in Sendmail before 8.13.8 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a long "header line"31Monitor
- CVE-2002-2261Sendmail 8.9.0 through 8.12.6 allows remote attackers to bypass relaying restrictions enforced by the 'check_relay' function by spoofing a b31Monitor
- CVE-2002-0906Buffer overflow in Sendmail before 8.12.5, when configured to use a custom DNS map to query TXT records, allows remote attackers to cause a 31Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| debian:sendmail | 8.14.3-9.1 · Debian:12 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:sendmail | 0:8.13.8-8.el5 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client_workstation | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:sendmail-cf | 0:8.13.8-8.el5 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:sendmail-debuginfo | 0:8.13.8-8.el5 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client_workstation | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:sendmail-devel | 0:8.13.8-8.el5 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client_workstation | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:sendmail-doc | 0:8.13.8-8.el5 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- P · data can be read
- Integrity
- P · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- P · the service can be disrupted
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Confidentiality impact
- P
- Integrity impact
- P
- Availability impact
- P
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-310 · Cryptographic IssuesCVSS vector
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
MITRE has no CAPEC/ATT&CK mapping for this CWE.
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (19 more)Show less
- marc.info/?l=bugtraq&m=126953289726317&w=2
- secunia.com/advisories/37998
- secunia.com/advisories/38314
- secunia.com/advisories/38915
- secunia.com/advisories/39088
- secunia.com/advisories/40109
- secunia.com/advisories/43366
- security.gentoo.org/glsa/glsa-201206-30.xml
- sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-77-1021797.1-1
- www.debian.org/security/2010/dsa-1985
- www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2011-0262.html
- www.securityfocus.com/bid/37543
- www.sendmail.org/releases/8.14.4
- www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2009/3661
- www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/0719
- www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/1386
- www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2011/0415
- oval.cisecurity.org/repository/search/definition/oval%3Aorg.mitre.oval%3Adef%3A10255
- oval.cisecurity.org/repository/search/definition/oval%3Aorg.mitre.oval%3Adef%3A11822
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.