GHSA-4MCR-893F-MCPR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-21 18:33 – Updated: 2026-10-21 18:33Missing authorization in the REST and COM administration APIs of Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0 through 6.3.6 allows a remote authenticated user whose credential is confined to named domains to change mail routing and domain configuration beyond those domains on a multi-tenant server. A domain administrator, an account or API key given another role that manages accounts in named domains, or a full-scope API key issued for named domains could create a domain alias for any name (so that other tenants' mail for that name is diverted to an address the attacker controls, or denied), rename a domain to any name the server does not host, set a rule's bind-to-address, send-using-route or script-function action to reach one of the server's own addresses, a configured route's stored credentials or a function of the server's event script, and set the domain's relay host - which delivery then connects to with no address rule - to an address on the server's own network; and over the COM API any account could set the three rule actions on its own rules, where the script-function action runs at delivery. The authorization gate did not refuse these routes to a confined credential and the handlers were not given the caller; over COM the domain-alias save performed no authorization check at all, the domain rename required only a domain administrator, and a rule save required at most that the caller could change the rule's owner.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-114489"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-21T16:17:35Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Missing authorization in the REST and COM administration APIs of Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0 through 6.3.6 allows a remote authenticated user whose credential is confined to named domains to change mail routing and domain configuration beyond those domains on a multi-tenant server. A domain administrator, an account or API key given another role that manages accounts in named domains, or a full-scope API key issued for named domains could create a domain alias for any name (so that other tenants\u0027 mail for that name is diverted to an address the attacker controls, or denied), rename a domain to any name the server does not host, set a rule\u0027s bind-to-address, send-using-route or script-function action to reach one of the server\u0027s own addresses, a configured route\u0027s stored credentials or a function of the server\u0027s event script, and set the domain\u0027s relay host - which delivery then connects to with no address rule - to an address on the server\u0027s own network; and over the COM API any account could set the three rule actions on its own rules, where the script-function action runs at delivery. The authorization gate did not refuse these routes to a confined credential and the handlers were not given the caller; over COM the domain-alias save performed no authorization check at all, the domain rename required only a domain administrator, and a rule save required at most that the caller could change the rule\u0027s owner.",
"id": "GHSA-4mcr-893f-mcpr",
"modified": "2026-10-21T18:33:16Z",
"published": "2026-10-21T18:33:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-114489"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/hmailserver/hmailserver/-/releases/v6.3.7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/hmailserver/hmailserver/-/work_items/86"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
Loading timeline…
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.