Search Results (33 CVEs found)

CVE Vendors Products Updated CVSS v3.1
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-2002-1827 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 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-2003-0161 5 Compaq, Hp, Redhat and 2 more 11 Tru64, Hp-ux, Hp-ux Series 700 and 8 more 2025-04-03 N/A
The prescan() function in the address parser (parseaddr.c) in Sendmail before 8.12.9 does not properly handle certain conversions from char and int types, which can cause a length check to be disabled when Sendmail misinterprets an input value as a special "NOCHAR" control value, allowing attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code via a buffer overflow attack using messages, a different vulnerability than CVE-2002-1337.
CVE-2005-2070 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
The ClamAV Mail fILTER (clamav-milter) 0.84 through 0.85d, when used in Sendmail using long timeouts, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service by keeping an open connection, which prevents ClamAV from reloading.
CVE-2003-0308 2 Debian, Sendmail 2 Debian Linux, Sendmail 2025-04-03 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-2003-0681 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-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-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-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-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-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-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.