SQL Injection exists in MailSherlock before 1.5.235 for OAKlouds
SQL Injection exists in MailSherlock before 1.5.235 for OAKlouds allows an unauthenticated user to extract the subjects of the emails of other users within the enterprise via the select_mid parameter in an letgo.cgi request.
- Published
- Feb 11, 2019
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.2% · 68th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-89
Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.
Report tools
Action score
21
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 21 / 40 · 5.3 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 1.2%
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 5.3
- CNA · twcert
- 4.3
- 1.0 point gap
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Noroxi analysis
No Noroxi analysis for this record yet
We don't hand-write analysis for the hundreds of thousands of vulnerabilities in the database; that wouldn't be honest. For notable, high-impact vulnerabilities our team writes the mechanism, detection and remediation steps.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| hgiga | oaklouds mailsherlock | cpe:2.3:a:hgiga:oaklouds_mailsherlock |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- hgiga oaklouds mailsherlockbefore 1.5.235
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (twcert). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
OAKlouds MailSherlock
- unspecified and later · before 1.5.235affected
Same product
hgiga: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2023-24841HGiga MailSherlock - Command Injection28Monitor
- CVE-2023-24840HGiga MailSherlock - SQL Injection28Monitor
- CVE-2023-24839HGiga MailSherlock - Reflected XSS24Monitor
- CVE-2023-24842HGiga MailSherlock - Broken Access Control21Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
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.
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
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- low · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- Low
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-89 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
nvd-primary
Root cause
The query text is built by concatenating user input. The database cannot tell where the data ends and the command begins.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-89 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
const owner = req.query.owner;const rows = await db.query( "SELECT * FROM files WHERE owner = '" + owner + "'");Fixed
const owner = req.query.owner;const rows = await db.query( "SELECT * FROM files WHERE owner = $1", [owner]);Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Command Line Execution through SQL InjectionCAPEC-108likelihood: Low · Very High
- Object Relational Mapping InjectionCAPEC-109likelihood: Low · High
- SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter TamperingCAPEC-110likelihood: High · Very High
- Expanding Control over the Operating System from the DatabaseCAPEC-470Very High
- SQL InjectionCAPEC-66likelihood: High · High
- Blind SQL InjectionCAPEC-7likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
- twcert.org.tw/subpages/ServeThePublic/public_document_details.aspx?id=73
- twcert.org.tw/subpages/ServeThePublic/public_document_details.aspx?lang=en-US&id=28
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.