CVE-2026-107569 — Unchecked Input for Loop Condition in hMailServer
Unchecked input for a loop condition in Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0 through 6.3.6 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to stop the server carrying mail. The server bounds the mail it generates in response to a message - a rule forward, reply or copy, an account forward, a Sieve redirect, vacation or notify, a bounce, an out-of-office reply - by a counter it carries in the message's X-hMailServer-LoopCount header, and makes no more once the counter reaches the configured rule loop limit (5 by default); that is what ends a forwarding or auto-reply cycle in a bounded number of hops. X-hMailServer-LoopCount is an ordinary header that is not stripped from mail arriving from outside, and the server read it with a signed conversion and no validation, so a count below zero passed every test against the limit: a sender who sets X-hMailServer-LoopCount to a negative value, or on the Linux builds to a value above the 32-bit signed range that the conversion wraps to a negative one, lifts the bound, and a message that enters a generated-mail cycle then loops up to about two thousand million times, each hop a queued message and a delivery, filling the queue and disk and stopping mail service. The Sieve notify action (from 6.2.22) consulted no limit at all, and its increment of the count could overflow a signed integer; and an account could reset the counter on its own mail through a Sieve editheader of the header (from 6.2.22) or a rule Set header value action (all versions) ahead of a forward or redirect.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- EPSS 0.4% (30-day exploitation probability)+4
- Technical severity (high)+6
- Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
CISA SSVC assessment CISA
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Progressive Robot Ltd hMailServer).
- The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive Robot Ltd | hMailServer | ≥ 6.0.0 and ≤ 6.3.6 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 | CVSS 3.1 | High | 3.9 | 3.6 | cve@gitlab.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 7.5 | CVSS 3.1 | High | — | — | GitHub, Inc. via GitHub Security Advisories |
| 7.5 | CVSS 3.1 | High | — | — | GitLab via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H (score shown at the top: cve@gitlab.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- SSVC assessment updated
- Source status changed · Received → Deferred
- Affected products added · progressive robot ltd/hmailserver
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 7.5
- Source status changed · → Received
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× References added · Oct 20, 2026 – Oct 20, 2026
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 19, 2026 – Oct 19, 2026
References
4 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- High CVE-2026-107571 Incorrect Default Permissions in hMailServer 1d
- Medium CVE-2026-107566 Missing Authorization in hMailServer 1d
- High CVE-2026-107567 Use of Less Trusted Source in hMailServer 1d
- Medium CVE-2026-107568 Missing Authorization in hMailServer 1d
- Medium CVE-2026-107585 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in hMailServer 12d
- Medium CVE-2026-107586 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in hMailServer 12d
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-107569 is "Unchecked Input for Loop Condition in hMailServer", rated High. It affects hMailServer (Progressive Robot Ltd); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.37% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.