Search Results (33 CVEs found)

CVE Vendors Products Updated CVSS v3.1
CVE-2001-0715 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail before 8.12.1, without the RestrictQueueRun option enabled, allows local users to obtain potentially sensitive information about the mail queue by setting debugging flags to enable debug mode.
CVE-1999-1592 2 Sendmail, Sun 2 Sendmail, Sunos 2025-04-03 N/A
Multiple unspecified vulnerabilities in sendmail 5, as installed on Sun SunOS 4.1.3_U1 and 4.1.4, have unspecified attack vectors and impact. NOTE: this might overlap CVE-1999-0129.
CVE-2002-1165 3 Netbsd, Redhat, Sendmail 4 Netbsd, Enterprise Linux, Linux and 1 more 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail Consortium's Restricted Shell (SMRSH) in Sendmail 8.12.6, 8.11.6-15, and possibly other versions after 8.11 from 5/19/1998, allows attackers to bypass the intended restrictions of smrsh by inserting additional commands after (1) "||" sequences or (2) "/" characters, which are not properly filtered or verified.
CVE-1999-0478 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Denial of service in HP-UX sendmail 8.8.6 related to accepting connections.
CVE-2002-1337 8 Gentoo, Hp, Netbsd and 5 more 11 Linux, Alphaserver Sc, Hp-ux and 8 more 2025-04-03 N/A
Buffer overflow in Sendmail 5.79 to 8.12.7 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via certain formatted address fields, related to sender and recipient header comments as processed by the crackaddr function of headers.c.
CVE-2002-2261 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail 8.9.0 through 8.12.6 allows remote attackers to bypass relaying restrictions enforced by the 'check_relay' function by spoofing a blank DNS hostname.
CVE-2003-0681 9 Apple, Gentoo, Hp and 6 more 15 Mac Os X, Mac Os X Server, Linux and 12 more 2025-04-03 N/A
A "potential buffer overflow in ruleset parsing" for Sendmail 8.12.9, when using the nonstandard rulesets (1) recipient (2), final, or (3) mailer-specific envelope recipients, has unknown consequences.
CVE-2001-0713 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail before 8.12.1 does not properly drop privileges when the -C option is used to load custom configuration files, which allows local users to gain privileges via malformed arguments in the configuration file whose names contain characters with the high bit set, such as (1) macro names that are one character long, (2) a variable setting which is processed by the setoption function, or (3) a Modifiers setting which is processed by the getmodifiers function.
CVE-2001-0714 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail before 8.12.1, without the RestrictQueueRun option enabled, allows local users to cause a denial of service (data loss) by (1) setting a high initial message hop count option (-h), which causes Sendmail to drop queue entries, (2) via the -qR option, or (3) via the -qS option.
CVE-2001-1349 2 Redhat, Sendmail 2 Linux, Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail before 8.11.4, and 8.12.0 before 8.12.0.Beta10, allows local users to cause a denial of service and possibly corrupt the heap and gain privileges via race conditions in signal handlers.
CVE-2002-0906 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Buffer overflow in Sendmail before 8.12.5, when configured to use a custom DNS map to query TXT records, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code via a malicious DNS server.
CVE-2023-51765 3 Freebsd, Redhat, Sendmail 3 Freebsd, Enterprise Linux, Sendmail 2024-11-21 5.3 Medium
sendmail through 8.17.2 allows SMTP smuggling in certain configurations. Remote attackers can use a published exploitation technique to inject e-mail messages with a spoofed MAIL FROM address, allowing bypass of an SPF protection mechanism. This occurs because sendmail supports <LF>.<CR><LF> but some other popular e-mail servers do not. This is resolved in 8.18 and later versions with 'o' in srv_features.
CVE-2021-3618 5 Debian, F5, Fedoraproject and 2 more 5 Debian Linux, Nginx, Fedora and 2 more 2024-11-21 7.4 High
ALPACA is an application layer protocol content confusion attack, exploiting TLS servers implementing different protocols but using compatible certificates, such as multi-domain or wildcard certificates. A MiTM attacker having access to victim's traffic at the TCP/IP layer can redirect traffic from one subdomain to another, resulting in a valid TLS session. This breaks the authentication of TLS and cross-protocol attacks may be possible where the behavior of one protocol service may compromise the other at the application layer.