hMailServer: Missing Authorization
CVE-2026-104660 is a high-severity missing authorization vulnerability in hMailServer from Progressive Robot, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.8 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. The record lists version 6.3.6 as the first without the flaw, so updating hMailServer to that release or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.11% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update hMailServer to 6.3.6 or a later version.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive Robot | hMailServer | 6.0.0 up to, but not including, 6.3.6 | 6.3.6 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- LocalThe attacker needs local access or must trick a user into running something.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by CNA (gitlab.com).
Official description
Missing authorization on COM objects in Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0 through 6.3.5 (Windows only) lets a local interactive user with no hMailServer credential read and write arbitrary files as the service account and queue mail as any sender. The service registers its COM classes with no DCOM access or launch permission and calls CoInitializeSecurity with no security descriptor, so any user logged on at the console or over Remote Desktop can activate the classes in the running service; a hMailServer.Message, its Attachments and Attachment, and a hMailServer.FetchAccount created this way carry a credential that never authenticated. Attachments.Add(path) and Attachment.SaveAs(path) performed no authorization check, and Message.Save/Copy and FetchAccount.AccountID/Save performed none either up to 6.3.3 and from 6.3.4 treated a holder with no credential as the server's own event-script host. Because the service does not impersonate the COM caller, Attachments.Add reads any file the service account can read and returns it, Attachment.SaveAs writes attacker-chosen bytes to any path it can write (on a LocalSystem installation, code execution as SYSTEM), Message.Save queues outbound mail from any address past the SMTP checks, and FetchAccount attaches a mail-fetch job to any mailbox. The objects an Application handed out behave the same once a later Authenticate on that Application fails.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
References
Patches and release notes
Other references
Other vulnerabilities in hMailServer
- 7.3 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.3 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
Recent Missing Authorization vulnerabilities
- 8.7 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 9.1 Critical severity
- 8.2 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.