GNOME Evolution through 3.38.3 produces a "Valid signature" message for an unknown identifier on a previously trusted key because Evolution
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 13/100)
- 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: 0.34% (FIRST EPSS).
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. 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
GNOME Evolution through 3.38.3 produces a "Valid signature" message for an unknown identifier on a previously trusted key because Evolution does not retrieve enough information from the GnuPG API. NOTE: third parties dispute the significance of this issue, and dispute whether Evolution is the best place to change this behavior
- Published
- Feb 1, 2021
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.3% · 26th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-345
Report tools
Action score
13
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 13 / 40 · 3.3 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.3%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| gnome | evolution | cpe:2.3:a:gnome:evolution |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- gnome evolutionup to 3.38.3 inclusive
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian:12 | evolution | from 0 | — |
Same product
gnome: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2016-10727camel/providers/imapx/camel-imapx-server.c in the IMAPx component in GNOME evolution-data-server before 3.21.2 proceeds with cleartext data 40Plan
- CVE-2018-12422addressbook/backends/ldap/e-book-backend-ldap.c in Evolution-Data-Server in GNOME Evolution through 3.29.2 might allow attackers to trigger 40Plan
- CVE-2005-0102Integer overflow in camel-lock-helper in Evolution 2.0.2 and earlier allows local users or remote malicious POP3 servers to execute arbitrar40Plan
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2013-4166Feb 6, 2020 · The gpg_ctx_add_recipient function in camel/camel-gpg-context.c in GNOME Evolution 3.8.4 and earlier and Evolution Data Server 3.9.5 and ear31Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-11879Apr 17, 2020 · An issue was discovered in GNOME Evolution before 3.35.91.27Monitor
- Later →CVE-2009-3721May 26, 2021 · Multiple directory traversal and buffer overflow vulnerabilities were discovered in yTNEF, and in Evolution's TNEF parser that is derived fr31Monitor
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
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- none
- Integrity
- low · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- None
- Integrity impact
- Low
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-345 · Insufficient Verification of Data AuthenticityCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
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.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking)CAPEC-111likelihood: High · High
- Cache PoisoningCAPEC-141likelihood: High · High
- DNS Cache PoisoningCAPEC-142likelihood: High · High
- Content SpoofingCAPEC-148likelihood: Medium · Medium
- Spoofing of UDDI/ebXML MessagesCAPEC-218Medium
- Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-MiddleCAPEC-384Low
- Transaction or Event Tampering via Application API ManipulationCAPEC-385Medium
- Application API Navigation RemappingCAPEC-386Medium
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.