Search Results (33 CVEs found)

CVE Vendors Products Updated CVSS v3.1
CVE-2002-2261 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2026-04-16 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-2001-0714 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2026-04-16 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-2002-1827 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2026-04-16 N/A
Sendmail 8.9.0 through 8.12.3 allows local users to cause a denial of service by obtaining an exclusive lock on the (1) alias, (2) map, (3) statistics, and (4) pid files.
CVE-2002-1165 3 Netbsd, Redhat, Sendmail 4 Netbsd, Enterprise Linux, Linux and 1 more 2026-04-16 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-2006-0058 2 Redhat, Sendmail 2 Enterprise Linux, Sendmail 2026-04-16 N/A
Signal handler race condition in Sendmail 8.13.x before 8.13.6 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by triggering timeouts in a way that causes the setjmp and longjmp function calls to be interrupted and modify unexpected memory locations.
CVE-1999-1309 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2026-04-16 N/A
Sendmail before 8.6.7 allows local users to gain root access via a large value in the debug (-d) command line option.
CVE-1999-1592 2 Sendmail, Sun 2 Sendmail, Sunos 2026-04-16 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-2001-0653 2 Redhat, Sendmail 2 Linux, Sendmail 2026-04-16 N/A
Sendmail 8.10.0 through 8.11.5, and 8.12.0 beta, allows local users to modify process memory and possibly gain privileges via a large value in the 'category' part of debugger (-d) command line arguments, which is interpreted as a negative number.
CVE-2003-0308 2 Debian, Sendmail 2 Debian Linux, Sendmail 2026-04-16 N/A
The Sendmail 8.12.3 package in Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 does not securely create temporary files, which could allow local users to gain additional privileges via (1) expn, (2) checksendmail, or (3) doublebounce.pl.
CVE-2003-0688 6 Compaq, Freebsd, Openbsd and 3 more 7 Tru64, Freebsd, Openbsd and 4 more 2026-04-16 N/A
The DNS map code in Sendmail 8.12.8 and earlier, when using the "enhdnsbl" feature, does not properly initialize certain data structures, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (process crash) via an invalid DNS response that causes Sendmail to free incorrect data.
CVE-2014-3956 4 Fedoraproject, Freebsd, Hp and 1 more 4 Fedora, Freebsd, Hpux and 1 more 2025-04-12 N/A
The sm_close_on_exec function in conf.c in sendmail before 8.14.9 has arguments in the wrong order, and consequently skips setting expected FD_CLOEXEC flags, which allows local users to access unintended high-numbered file descriptors via a custom mail-delivery program.
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.