Froxlor DomainZones.add allows DNS zone-file RR injection via record/type fields
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 21/100)
- 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: 0.44% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: froxlor froxlor 2.3.8.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to froxlor froxlor 2.3.8 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
Froxlor is open source server administration software. Prior to 2.3.8, the DomainZones.add API command in lib/Froxlor/Api/Commands/DomainZones.php accepts user-controlled record and type values without rejecting line delimiters, tab characters, semicolons, or unsupported DNS record types before lib/Froxlor/Dns/DnsEntry.php serializes the values into a BIND zone file. An authenticated customer with DNS-zone permissions can place a crafted value in the record field, or use the related type-field variant, to create additional resource-record lines that bypass Froxlor's field-level validation. BIND accepts the injected records, allowing modification of DNS data and possible DNS availability impact within a zone the caller is authorized to manage. This issue is fixed in version 2.3.8.
- Published
- Aug 18, 2026
- Updated
- Sep 8, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.4% · 37th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-74
Report tools
Action score
21
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 21 / 40 · 5.4 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.4%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 5.4
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
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.
—
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
froxlor froxlor
- < 2.3.8affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Packagist | froxlor/froxlor | before 2.3.8 | 2.3.8 |
Same product
froxlor: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2023-0315Command Injection in froxlor/froxlor64This week
- CVE-2023-2034Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type in froxlor/froxlor56Plan
- CVE-2021-42325Froxlor through 0.10.29.1 allows SQL injection in Database/Manager/DbManagerMySQL.php via a custom DB name.43Plan
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-54347Aug 18, 2026 · Froxlor: Stored XSS in DNS TXT Record Content Allows Customer-to-Admin Account Takeover34Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-54348Aug 18, 2026 · Froxlor: Second-Order SQL Injection via `Admins.add` `ipaddress` Parameter Allows Full Database Exfiltration28Monitor
- Later →CVE-2026-55593Aug 18, 2026 · Froxlor: CSRF Vulnerability in Froxlor AJAX Endpoint — Missing Cross-Site Request Forgery Protection26Monitor
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 |
|---|---|---|
| froxlor froxlor | 2.3.8 · description | Vendor (CNA) |
| Packagist:froxlor/froxlor | 2.3.8 | 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.
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.
- CVE-2026-4123775 days apartFroxlor has an incomplete fix for CVE-2026-3093234Monitor
- CVE-2026-30932147 days apartFroxlor is vulnerable to BIND zone file injection via unsanitized DNS record content in DomainZones API34Monitor
- CVE-2026-10996156 days apartFroxlor 0.10.0 before 2.3.14 Newline Injection via Ftps.add additional_members33Monitor
- CVE-2026-4123475 days apartFroxlor: BIND Zone File Injection via TXT Record Content30Monitor
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.
- 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
- low · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- None
- Integrity impact
- Low
- Availability impact
- Low
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-74 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
nvd-secondary
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
- Server Side Include (SSI) InjectionCAPEC-101likelihood: High · High
- HTTP Request SplittingCAPEC-105likelihood: Medium · High
- Command Line Execution through SQL InjectionCAPEC-108likelihood: Low · Very High
- Double EncodingCAPEC-120likelihood: Low · Medium
- Subverting Environment Variable ValuesCAPEC-13likelihood: High · Very High
- Format String InjectionCAPEC-135likelihood: High · High
- Client-side Injection-induced Buffer OverflowCAPEC-14likelihood: Medium · High
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (2 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.