In HCL Notes version 9 previous to release 9.0.1 FixPack 10 Interim Fix 8, version 10 previous to release 10.0.1 FixPack 6 and version 11 pr
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 27/100)
- 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: 0.31% (FIRST EPSS).
- Physical access to the device is required. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
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
In HCL Notes version 9 previous to release 9.0.1 FixPack 10 Interim Fix 8, version 10 previous to release 10.0.1 FixPack 6 and version 11 previous to 11.0.1 FixPack 1, a vulnerability in the input parameter handling of the Notes Client could potentially be exploited by an attacker resulting in a buffer overflow. This could enable an attacker to crash HCL Notes or execute attacker-controlled code on the client.
- Published
- Nov 5, 2020
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.3% · 23th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-120
Report tools
Action score
27
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 27 / 40 · 6.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.3%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
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 |
|---|---|---|
| hcltech | notes | cpe:2.3:a:hcltech:notes |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- hcltech notes9.0 and later · up to 9.0.1 inclusive
- hcltech notes11.0 and later · up to 11.0.1 inclusive
- hcltech notes10.0.0
- hcltech notes10.0.1
- hcltech notes9.0.1
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (HCL). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
n/a HCL Notes
- HCL Notes version 9 previous to release 9.0.1 FixPack 10 Interim Fix 8, version 10 previous to release 10.0.1 FixPack 6 and version 11 previous to 11.0.1 FixPack 1affected
Same product
hcltech: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2020-14224A vulnerability in the MIME message handling of the HCL Notes v9 client could potentially be exploited by an unauthenticated attacker result40Plan
- CVE-2020-14268A vulnerability in the MIME message handling of the Notes client (versions 9 and 10) could potentially be exploited by an unauthenticated at40Plan
- CVE-2020-14232A vulnerability in the input parameter handling of HCL Notes v9 could potentially be exploited by an authenticated attacker resulting in a s35Monitor
- CVE-2022-44755HCL Notes is susceptible to a stack based buffer overflow vulnerability in lasr.dll in Micro Focus KeyView31Monitor
- CVE-2022-44753HCL Notes is susceptible to a stack based buffer overflow vulnerability in wp6sr.dll in Micro Focus KeyView31Monitor
- CVE-2022-44751HCL Notes is susceptible to a stack based buffer overflow vulnerability in lasr.dll in Micro Focus KeyView31Monitor
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.
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
- Physical access to the device is required.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Physical
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-120 · Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Root cause
When data is copied, the source length is not compared with the size of the destination buffer. Excess data overwrites adjacent memory.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-120 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
char buf[256];memcpy(buf, pkt->data, pkt->len);Fixed
char buf[256];if (pkt->len > sizeof(buf)) { return -EINVAL;}memcpy(buf, pkt->data, pkt->len);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)
- Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesCAPEC-10likelihood: High · High
- Overflow BuffersCAPEC-100likelihood: High · Very High
- Client-side Injection-induced Buffer OverflowCAPEC-14likelihood: Medium · High
- Filter Failure through Buffer OverflowCAPEC-24likelihood: High · High
- MIME ConversionCAPEC-42likelihood: High · High
- Overflow Binary Resource FileCAPEC-44likelihood: High · Very High
- Buffer Overflow via Symbolic LinksCAPEC-45likelihood: High · High
- Overflow Variables and TagsCAPEC-46likelihood: 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
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.