Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.15% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-114470High confidence
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in hMailServer
Progressive Robot Ltd · hMailServer
5.3MediumCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Patch availableMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Progressive Robot Ltd hMailServer and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Patch available01
What, why and how
Cross-site request forgery in the REST API of Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0 through 6.3.6 allows a remote attacker to make an authenticated user's browser perform a state-changing request. The REST API accepts HTTP Basic authentication and answers a browser with a Basic sign-in box; a browser caches the credential once the box is answered and sends it with later requests to that origin, including a top-level form post from another site, and the server reads a request body whatever its declared content type. The cross-site protection covered only the cookie session (a header a cross-site form cannot set, and a SameSite=Strict cookie); HTTP Basic was not held to it. A page under an attacker's control, visited by a user whose browser holds a cached Basic credential for the REST API - typically an administrator who signed in through the box - could therefore cause a state-changing request such as creating a domain, an account or an API key, or changing a setting, with the victim's credential. The attacker cannot read the cross-origin response, so the forgery is blind.
What
Cross-site request forgery in the REST API of Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0 through 6.3.6 allows a remote attacker to make an authenticated user's browser perform a state-changing request. The REST API accepts HTTP Basic authentication and answers a browser with a Basic sign-in box; a browser caches the credential once the box is answered and sends it with later requests to that origin, including a top-level form post from another site, and the server reads a request body whatever its declared content type. The cross-site protection covered only the cookie session (a header a cross-site form cannot set, and a SameSite=Strict cookie); HTTP Basic was not held to it. A page under an attacker's control, visited by a user whose browser holds a cached Basic credential for the REST API - typically an administrator who signed in through the box - could therefore cause a state-changing request such as creating a domain, an account or an API key, or changing a setting, with the victim's credential. The attacker cannot read the cross-origin response, so the forgery is blind.
Why
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Cross-site request forgery in the REST API of Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0 through 6.3.6 allows a remote attacker to make an authenticated user's browser perform a state-changing request. The REST API accepts HTTP Basic authentication and answers a browser with a Basic sign-in box; a browser caches the credential once the box is answered and sends it with later requests to that origin, including a top-level form post from another site, and the server reads a request body whatever its declared content type. The cross-site protection covered only the cookie session (a header a cross-site form cannot set, and a SameSite=Strict cookie); HTTP Basic was not held to it. A page under an attacker's control, visited by a user whose browser holds a cached Basic credential for the REST API - typically an administrator who signed in through the box - could therefore cause a state-changing request such as creating a domain, an account or an API key, or changing a setting, with the victim's credential. The attacker cannot read the cross-origin response, so the forgery is blind.
Why
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-352 ↗
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Affected
- hMailServer: 6.0.0 ≤ 6.3.6
- Fixed
- Upgrade to hMailServer 6.3.7, which refuses a credentialed state-changing REST request a browser reports as cross-site (by Sec-Fetch-Site, or an Origin whose host is not the server's own), covering HTTP Basic and bearer credentials as the cookie session was already covered. Until then, reach the REST API and the Deck from a dedicated browser or profile closed after use so no cached Basic credential is present while browsing other sites
- keep the REST API off (RestApiPort=0, the default) or bound to the loopback where it is not needed
- and prefer an API key (a Bearer token a cross-site page cannot set) over the Basic box for automated clients. An upgrade does not undo a request already forged: review API keys, accounts, domains and settings for changes nobody made, and revoke any key nobody issued.
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 21 Oct 2026 · Last source change 21 Oct 2026, 15:11 UTC · CWE-352 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-10-22
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-107313
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD awaiting enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-107313 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-107313"}
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.