CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-114489NVD status: Awaiting Analysis

hMailServer: Missing Authorization

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2026-114489 is a high-severity missing authorization vulnerability in hMailServer from Progressive Robot, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.1 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. Affected hMailServer versions: 6.0.0 through 6.3.6. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.27% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Check which version of hMailServer you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
Progressive RobothMailServer6.0.0 through 6.3.6Not stated

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
NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
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
NoneAvailability is not affected.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N. Scored by CNA (gitlab.com).

Official description

Missing authorization in the REST and COM administration APIs of Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0 through 6.3.6 allows a remote authenticated user whose credential is confined to named domains to change mail routing and domain configuration beyond those domains on a multi-tenant server. A domain administrator, an account or API key given another role that manages accounts in named domains, or a full-scope API key issued for named domains could create a domain alias for any name (so that other tenants' mail for that name is diverted to an address the attacker controls, or denied), rename a domain to any name the server does not host, set a rule's bind-to-address, send-using-route or script-function action to reach one of the server's own addresses, a configured route's stored credentials or a function of the server's event script, and set the domain's relay host - which delivery then connects to with no address rule - to an address on the server's own network; and over the COM API any account could set the three rule actions on its own rules, where the script-function action runs at delivery. The authorization gate did not refuse these routes to a confined credential and the handlers were not given the caller; over COM the domain-alias save performed no authorization check at all, the domain rename required only a domain administrator, and a rule save required at most that the caller could change the rule's owner.

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.

More Missing Authorization vulnerabilities (CWE-862)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Other vulnerabilities in hMailServer

All hMailServer vulnerabilities

Recent Missing Authorization vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.