CVE-2026-114478 — Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy') in hMailServer
Insufficient preservation of the original sender in the forwarding of Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0 through 6.3.6 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to have mail they write, naming in its From an address at a domain the server hosts, delivered to other receivers as passing that domain's DMARC policy. When the server sent on a copy of mail that came from outside - an account's forward, a mail rule's forward, a Sieve redirect, a list's copy, or an alias or list expanding to an outside address - it could give the copy an SMTP identity in the organisation of the domain the copy's From names, whatever the message's origin: with the Sender Rewriting Scheme or the rewrite of the envelope sender on forwarding enabled (both off by default), an address at the forwarding domain; for a list, its bounce address; for a message with an empty envelope sender, none, under the server's own host name; and an envelope sender the message came with at a subdomain of a hosted domain was kept. Where that identity's SPF record authorises the server, other receivers' SPF check of the copy passed for a domain aligned with the From, and DMARC passed with it, although the message had not passed DMARC when the server received it. Exploitation needs a forward, redirect, alias or list that carries the hosted domain's mail to an outside address, and one of: SRS or the envelope rewrite enabled; a list whose bounce address is in the domain's organisation; an envelope sender at a subdomain whose SPF record authorises the server; or, for an empty envelope sender, an SPF record that authorises the server under its host name. The DKIM route to the same result is CVE-2026-107567.
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 0.3% (30-day exploitation probability)+3
- Technical severity (medium)+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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.9 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | 2.2 | 3.6 | cve@gitlab.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 5.9 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | — | — | GitHub, Inc. via GitHub Security Advisories |
| 5.9 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | — | — | GitLab via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N (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
- Source status changed · Received → Awaiting Analysis
- Affected products added · progressive robot ltd/hmailserver
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 5.9
- Source status changed · → Received
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× References added · Oct 22, 2026 – Oct 22, 2026
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 21, 2026 – Oct 21, 2026
References
4 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- High CVE-2026-114490 Incorrect Authorization in hMailServer 1d
- Medium CVE-2026-114477 Missing Authorization in hMailServer 1d
- Medium CVE-2026-114479 Not Failing Securely ('Failing Open') in hMailServer 1d
- High CVE-2026-114489 Missing Authorization in hMailServer 1d
- Medium CVE-2026-114470 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in hMailServer 1d
- Low CVE-2026-114472 Insufficient Resource Pool in hMailServer 1d
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 CISA SSVC assessment.
- 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-2026-114478 is "Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy') in hMailServer", rated Medium. 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 5.9 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.26% 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.