NVD / CVE Program· CNA mitre

CVE-2019-12269: Enigmail before 2.0.11 allows PGP signature spoofing: for an inline PGP message, an attacker can cause the product to display a "correctly s

Noroxi assessment

Priority: Monitor (action score 30/100)

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: 1.1% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 67.8% of all records.
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.
Fixed version: enigmail (Debian:11) 2:2.0.11+ds1-1; enigmail (openSUSE:Leap 15.0) 2.0.11-31.1; enigmail (openSUSE:Tumbleweed) 2.2.4-1.4.

Low priority for now. Upgrade to enigmail (Debian:11) 2:2.0.11+ds1-1; enigmail (openSUSE:Leap 15.0) 2.0.11-31.1; enigmail (openSUSE:Tumbleweed) 2.2.4-1.4 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

Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS

Enigmail before 2.0.11 allows PGP signature spoofing: for an inline PGP message, an attacker can cause the product to display a "correctly signed" message indication, but display different unauthenticated text.

HighCVSS 7.5 · v3.0—No exploit Fix available

Published: May 21, 2019
Updated: Jun 16, 2026
EPSS: 1.1% · 67th percentile
CWE: CWE-347

Report tools

JSON

Action score

Monitor

Low priority for now.

CVSS: 30 / 40 · 7.5 / 10
CISA KEV: 0 / 30 · Not listed
EPSS: 0 / 30 · 1.1%

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

Is your version affected? Check it

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 help

Affected 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
enigmail	enigmail	cpe:2.3:a:enigmail:enigmail

Affected versions

NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.

enigmail enigmailbefore 2.0.11

Package-level exposure

OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.

Ecosystem	Package	Affected range	Fix
Debian:11	enigmail	before 2:2.0.11+ds1-1	2:2.0.11+ds1-1
openSUSE:Leap 15.0	enigmail	before 2.0.11-31.1	2.0.11-31.1
openSUSE:Tumbleweed	enigmail	before 2.2.4-1.4	2.2.4-1.4
SUSE:Linux Enterprise Workstation Extension 15	enigmail	before 2.0.11-3.16.1	2.0.11-3.16.1
SUSE:Package Hub 12	enigmail	before 2.0.11-31.1	2.0.11-31.1

Same product

enigmail: all records

Other highest-scoring records for the same primary product.

CVE-2006-5877The enigmail extension before 0.94.2 does not properly handle large, encrypted file e-mail attachments, which allows remote attackers to cau
32Monitor
CVE-2018-12019The signature verification routine in Enigmail before 2.0.7 interprets user ids as status/control messages and does not correctly keep track
31Monitor
CVE-2017-17848An issue was discovered in Enigmail before 1.9.9.
31Monitor

Published before and after this one in the same product

← EarlierCVE-2017-17847Dec 27, 2017 · An issue was discovered in Enigmail before 1.9.9.
30Monitor
← EarlierCVE-2018-15586Feb 11, 2019 · Enigmail before 2.0.6 is prone to to OpenPGP signatures being spoofed for arbitrary messages using a PGP/INLINE signature wrapped within a s
26Monitor
Later →CVE-2019-14664Aug 5, 2019 · In Enigmail below 2.1, an attacker in possession of PGP encrypted emails can wrap them as sub-parts within a crafted multipart email.
26Monitor

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:enigmail	2:2.0.11+ds1-1 · Debian:11	Package registry (OSV)
opensuse:enigmail	2.0.11-31.1 · openSUSE:Leap 15.0	Package registry (OSV)
suse:enigmail	2.0.11-3.16.1 · SUSE:Linux Enterprise Workstation Extension 15	Package registry (OSV)
suse:enigmail	2.0.11-31.1 · SUSE:Package Hub 12	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.

No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).

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 researchers

Finders, 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

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: none
Integrity: high · data or configuration can be modified
Availability: none

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: None
User interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality impact: None
Integrity impact: High
Availability impact: None

Weakness class (CWE)

CWE-347 · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

CVSS vector

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

nvd-primary

Root cause

The verifier takes the algorithm to verify with from the token’s own header. Untrusted data ends up deciding its own verification rule.

The bug in code

The whole CWE-347 class

A representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.

Vulnerable

1const claims = jwt.verify(token, publicKey);

Fixed

1const claims = jwt.verify(token, publicKey, {
2  algorithms: ["RS256"],
3  issuer: "https://id.example.com",
4  audience: "portal",
5});

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)

ATT&CK techniques

—

Change log

Fix✗ → ✓Sep 28, 2026, 10:46 PM UTC

For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →

References

lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-06/msg00061.html

Show all references (4 more)

Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.

All records