Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 1.51% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceUnknown · Unknown
Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verifiedIBM Lotus Notes 6.0, 6.5, and 7.0 does not properly handle replies to e-mail messages with alternate name users when the (1) "Save As Draft" option is used or (2) a "," (comma) is inside the "phrase" portion of an address, which can cause the e-mail to be sent to users that were deleted from the To, CC, and BCC fields, which allows remote attackers to obtain the list of original recipients.
IBM Lotus Notes 6.0, 6.5, and 7.0 does not properly handle replies to e-mail messages with alternate name users when the (1) "Save As Draft" option is used or (2) a "," (comma) is inside the "phrase" portion of an address, which can cause the e-mail to be sent to users that were deleted from the To, CC, and BCC fields, which allows remote attackers to obtain the list of original recipients.
The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.
An attacker operating through the affected interface may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
IBM Lotus Notes 6.0, 6.5, and 7.0 does not properly handle replies to e-mail messages with alternate name users when the (1) "Save As Draft" option is used or (2) a "," (comma) is inside the "phrase" portion of an address, which can cause the e-mail to be sent to users that were deleted from the To, CC, and BCC fields, which allows remote attackers to obtain the list of original recipients.
The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.
An attacker operating through the affected interface may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
A structured CVE source labels at least one public reference as exploit material. BlackTree has not independently validated that it is safe, reliable or weaponised.
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:NOperational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 21 Jul 2006 · Last source change 7 Aug 2024, 18:39 UTC · CWE not yet assigned
Missing structured fields: CWE classification, affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.