Search Results (33 CVEs found)

CVE Vendors Products Updated CVSS v3.1
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-2002-0906 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Buffer overflow in Sendmail before 8.12.5, when configured to use a custom DNS map to query TXT records, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code via a malicious DNS server.
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-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-2001-0713 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail before 8.12.1 does not properly drop privileges when the -C option is used to load custom configuration files, which allows local users to gain privileges via malformed arguments in the configuration file whose names contain characters with the high bit set, such as (1) macro names that are one character long, (2) a variable setting which is processed by the setoption function, or (3) a Modifiers setting which is processed by the getmodifiers function.
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-2002-2423 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail 8.12.0 through 8.12.6 truncates log messages longer than 100 characters, which allows remote attackers to prevent the IP address from being logged via a long IDENT response.
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-2006-1173 2 Redhat, Sendmail 2 Enterprise Linux, Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail before 8.13.7 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via deeply nested, malformed multipart MIME messages that exhaust the stack during the recursive mime8to7 function for performing 8-bit to 7-bit conversion, which prevents Sendmail from delivering queued messages and might lead to disk consumption by core dump files.
CVE-1999-1309 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 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-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.