Filtered by vendor Sendmail
Subscriptions
Total
33 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2002-1337 | 8 Gentoo, Hp, Netbsd and 5 more | 11 Linux, Alphaserver Sc, Hp-ux and 8 more | 2025-04-03 | N/A |
| Buffer overflow in Sendmail 5.79 to 8.12.7 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via certain formatted address fields, related to sender and recipient header comments as processed by the crackaddr function of headers.c. | ||||
| 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-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-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-1999-0478 | 1 Sendmail | 1 Sendmail | 2025-04-03 | N/A |
| Denial of service in HP-UX sendmail 8.8.6 related to accepting connections. | ||||
| 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-2002-1165 | 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-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-2003-0308 | 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-1999-1580 | 2 Sendmail, Sun | 2 Sendmail, Sunos | 2025-04-03 | N/A |
| SunOS sendmail 5.59 through 5.65 uses popen to process a forwarding host argument, which allows local users to gain root privileges by modifying the IFS (Internal Field Separator) variable and passing crafted values to the -oR option. | ||||
| CVE-2003-0694 | 12 Apple, Compaq, Freebsd and 9 more | 20 Mac Os X, Mac Os X Server, Tru64 and 17 more | 2025-04-03 | N/A |
| The prescan function in Sendmail 8.12.9 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via buffer overflow attacks, as demonstrated using the parseaddr function in parseaddr.c. | ||||
| 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. | ||||