BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-114719High confidence

Roundcube Webmail before 1.6.20 and 1.7.x before 1.7.5 is affected by a CSRF validation bypass in the mark-as-junk action of the markasjunk plugin

Roundcube · Webmail

3.7LowCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix

Low technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Fix availability varies by product
R
Operational reassessment

Published severity in operational context

Open reassessment dashboard →
Published severityLowOperational priority:Low, unchanged from published severity.unchanged

Evidence used

  • No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
  • The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
  • EPSS is 0.25% for the current model date.

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

  1. Confirm that the asset runs Roundcube Webmail and falls inside the recorded affected range.
  2. Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
  3. Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
  4. Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Mitigation target: No default targetRemediation target: Normal maintenance

This automated reassessment organises public evidence. It does not know asset exposure, business impact or control effectiveness and does not replace CVSS or a human risk decision.

Cross-source reconciliation

Remediation availability differs by product scope

Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Distribution package intelligence

Release-specific package status

Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.

5 package states
Package result overrides the generic status

BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 1 affected package state shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.

Repository candidate not checked

A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.

Distribution releaseSource packageVendor stateFixed versionEvidence
Debian trixietrixie · sourceroundcubeVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.1.6.20+dfsg-0+deb13u1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 23 Oct 2026
Debian bookwormbookworm · sourceroundcubeAffected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open.Not published in this feedDebian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 23 Oct 2026
Debian forkyforky · sourceroundcubeVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.1.6.20+dfsg-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 23 Oct 2026
Debian sidsid · sourceroundcubeVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.1.6.20+dfsg-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 23 Oct 2026
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · esm-appsroundcubeUnder evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing.Not published in this feedCanonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 23 Oct 2026
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Choose official national sources for this report. Each advisory shows its original language. Your selection is remembered on this device and included in shared links.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2026-107883

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

Roundcube Webmail before 1.6.20 and 1.7.x before 1.7.5 is affected by a CSRF validation bypass in the mark-as-junk action of the markasjunk plugin. The plugin read the _uid parameter from POST data but passed it to rcmail::get_uids() without constraining the input mode, so values re-read inside that helper could be taken from the query string and the action carried out without a valid CSRF token. Upstream fixed this in the commit “Fix CSRF validation bypass in the mark-as-junk action”, which passes rcube_utils::INPUT_POST explicitly.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
3.7 · CVSS 3.1
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionPatch only the product branches with a verified fix

Low technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.

Fix availability varies by product
01

What, why and how

Roundcube Webmail before 1.6.20 and 1.7.x before 1.7.5 is affected by a CSRF validation bypass in the mark-as-junk action of the markasjunk plugin. The plugin read the _uid parameter from POST data but passed it to rcmail::get_uids() without constraining the input mode, so values re-read inside that helper could be taken from the query string and the action carried out without a valid CSRF token. Upstream fixed this in the commit “Fix CSRF validation bypass in the mark-as-junk action”, which passes rcube_utils::INPUT_POST explicitly.

What

Roundcube Webmail before 1.6.20 and 1.7.x before 1.7.5 is affected by a CSRF validation bypass in the mark-as-junk action of the markasjunk plugin. The plugin read the _uid parameter from POST data but passed it to rcmail::get_uids() without constraining the input mode, so values re-read inside that helper could be taken from the query string and the action carried out without a valid CSRF token. Upstream fixed this in the commit “Fix CSRF validation bypass in the mark-as-junk action”, which passes rcube_utils::INPUT_POST explicitly.

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 or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

Roundcube Webmail before 1.6.20 and 1.7.x before 1.7.5 is affected by a CSRF validation bypass in the mark-as-junk action of the markasjunk plugin. The plugin read the _uid parameter from POST data but passed it to rcmail::get_uids() without constraining the input mode, so values re-read inside that helper could be taken from the query string and the action carried out without a valid CSRF token. Upstream fixed this in the commit “Fix CSRF validation bypass in the mark-as-junk action”, which passes rcube_utils::INPUT_POST explicitly.

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 or 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
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

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
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
None recorded

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
None
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:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Common 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.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited 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.
NetworkUnauthenticatedCWE-352
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-107883Official EUVD mapping

Roundcube Webmail before 1.6.20 and 1.7.x before 1.7.5 is affected by a CSRF validation bypass in the mark-as-junk action of the markasjunk plugin. The plugin read the _uid parameter from POST data but passed it to rcmail::get_uids() without constraining the input mode, so values re-read inside that helper could be taken from the query string and the action carried out without a valid CSRF token. Upstream fixed this in the commit “Fix CSRF validation bypass in the mark-as-junk action”, which passes rcube_utils::INPUT_POST explicitly.

Official EUVD record ↗
BSI · German · WID-SEC-2026-4043Roundcube Webmail: Mehrere Schwachstellen

Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Roundcube Webmail ausnutzen, um Sicherheitsvorkehrungen zu umgehen, Daten zu manipulieren, Cross-Site-Scripting-Angriffe durchzuführen, vertrauliche Informationen offenzulegen, einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand auszulösen oder andere, nicht näher spezifizierte Auswirkungen zu erreichen.

Official advisory ↗
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.
Fix availability varies by product
Affected
Webmail: 1.6.0 < 1.6.20, 1.7.0 < 1.7.5
Fixed
An authoritative update reference is available, but the fixed version is not recorded in the structured CVE fields. Check the linked vendor advisory for the applicable release.
Action
Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
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 22 Oct 2026 · Last source change 22 Oct 2026, 01:28 UTC · CWE-352 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-10-22
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-107883
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enrichment underway

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates ↗
  1. ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-107883 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.
    Before
    not recorded
    After
    {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-107883"}
    ENISA EUVD ↗
  2. Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: removed patch: github.com/1.6.20; removed patch: github.com/1.7.5; 4 further removals.
    Before
    patch: github.com/1.6.20 · patch: github.com/1.7.5 · patch: github.com/15b0dc0d6e5712310c8f663577361bf8132a7f81 · 3 more references
    After
    no authoritative guidance recorded
    CNA ↗
  3. Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.
    Before
    Webmail: 1.6.0 < 1.6.20, 1.7.0 < 1.7.5 · Fixed: An authoritative update reference is available, but the fixed version is not recorded in the structured CVE fields. Check the linked vendor advisory for the applicable release.
    After
    Webmail: 1.6.0 < 1.6.20, 1.7.0 < 1.7.5 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
    CNA ↗
  4. Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Patch available to Awaiting fix.
    Before
    Patch available
    After
    Awaiting fix
    CNA ↗
  5. Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.
    CNA ↗
Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
CVE published
ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-107883↗CVE authority or vendor reference↗Official CVE record (CNA and ADP data)↗NVD record↗
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.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2026-114719 · cve.blacktree.nl