BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-114730High confidence

Roundcube Webmail 1.6.14 before 1.6.20 and 1.7.0 before 1.7.5 is affected by a server-side request forgery filter bypass

Roundcube · Webmail

7.2HighCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. 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 severityHighOperational priority:High, 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 0.31% 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: Within 30 daysRemediation target: Within 180 days

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
Direct vendor intelligence

Authoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories

Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.

1 current
CVE-2026-114730 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securityroundcubemail: roundcubemail: Server-Side Request Forgery via address filter bypass
1 known not affected

The vendor explicitly states that these products are not affected by this CVE.

  • All currently supported Red Hat products
Summary
A flaw was found in Roundcube Webmail. The application's internal URL validation mechanism fails to properly block certain IPv6 address representations, including transition prefixes and unspecified addresses. A remote attacker can exploit this flaw by submitting a crafted URL to bypass Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) protections. This allows the server to make unauthorized requests to internal loopback, link-local, or cloud metadata endpoints, potentially leading to sensitive information disclosure.
Remediation
No remediation text is recorded.
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-2026-107997

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

Roundcube Webmail 1.6.14 before 1.6.20 and 1.7.0 before 1.7.5 is affected by a server-side request forgery filter bypass. The network blocklist used by rcube_utils::is_local_url() omitted the RFC 6052 NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b::/96, the RFC 8215 local-use NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b:1::/48 and the unspecified address ::/128, so URLs such as http://[64:ff9b::7f00:1]/ passed the filter and reached loopback, link-local and cloud metadata addresses. Upstream fixed this in the commit “Fix SSRF filter (is_local_url()) bypass via NAT64 64:ff9b::/96”.

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
7.2 · CVSS 3.1
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionPatch only the product branches with a verified fix

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. 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 1.6.14 before 1.6.20 and 1.7.0 before 1.7.5 is affected by a server-side request forgery filter bypass. The network blocklist used by rcube_utils::is_local_url() omitted the RFC 6052 NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b::/96, the RFC 8215 local-use NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b:1::/48 and the unspecified address ::/128, so URLs such as http://[64:ff9b::7f00:1]/ passed the filter and reached loopback, link-local and cloud metadata addresses. Upstream fixed this in the commit “Fix SSRF filter (is_local_url()) bypass via NAT64 64:ff9b::/96”.

What

Roundcube Webmail 1.6.14 before 1.6.20 and 1.7.0 before 1.7.5 is affected by a server-side request forgery filter bypass. The network blocklist used by rcube_utils::is_local_url() omitted the RFC 6052 NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b::/96, the RFC 8215 local-use NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b:1::/48 and the unspecified address ::/128, so URLs such as http://[64:ff9b::7f00:1]/ passed the filter and reached loopback, link-local and cloud metadata addresses. Upstream fixed this in the commit “Fix SSRF filter (is_local_url()) bypass via NAT64 64:ff9b::/96”.

Why

The server follows an attacker-influenced destination, allowing requests to systems or services the attacker cannot reach directly.

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 1.6.14 before 1.6.20 and 1.7.0 before 1.7.5 is affected by a server-side request forgery filter bypass. The network blocklist used by rcube_utils::is_local_url() omitted the RFC 6052 NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b::/96, the RFC 8215 local-use NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b:1::/48 and the unspecified address ::/128, so URLs such as http://[64:ff9b::7f00:1]/ passed the filter and reached loopback, link-local and cloud metadata addresses. Upstream fixed this in the commit “Fix SSRF filter (is_local_url()) bypass via NAT64 64:ff9b::/96”.

Why

The server follows an attacker-influenced destination, allowing requests to systems or services the attacker cannot reach directly.

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 → Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) → 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
Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary
Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.
CWE-918 ↗

CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.

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:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/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.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CLowConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.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
No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
NetworkUnauthenticatedCWE-918
A

Official authority intelligence

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

ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-107997Official EUVD mapping

Roundcube Webmail 1.6.14 before 1.6.20 and 1.7.0 before 1.7.5 is affected by a server-side request forgery filter bypass. The network blocklist used by rcube_utils::is_local_url() omitted the RFC 6052 NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b::/96, the RFC 8215 local-use NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b:1::/48 and the unspecified address ::/128, so URLs such as http://[64:ff9b::7f00:1]/ passed the filter and reached loopback, link-local and cloud metadata addresses. Upstream fixed this in the commit “Fix SSRF filter (is_local_url()) bypass via NAT64 64:ff9b::/96”.

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 ↗
CSIRT Italia · Italian · risolte-vulnerabilita-in-roundcube-webmailRisolte vulnerabilità in Roundcube Webmail

Rilasciati aggiornamenti di sicurezza per risolvere 20 vulnerabilità, di cui 6 con gravità “alta”, in Roundcube Webmail, noto gestore di posta elettronica open source. Tali vulnerabilità, qualora sfruttate, potrebbero consentire ad un attaccante remoto di eludere meccanismi di sicurezza e di manipolare dati e contenuti sui sistemi interessati.

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: 1.6.14 < 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, 02:09 UTC · CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

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-2026-107997
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

What changed after publication

View recent updates ↗
  1. ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-107997 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.
    Before
    not recorded
    After
    {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-107997"}
    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/3c3a65f66b53b7aaf3d720acd06e0b102eceb090 · 3 more references
    After
    no authoritative guidance recorded
    CNA ↗
  3. Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.
    Before
    Webmail: 1.6.14 < 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: 1.6.14 < 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-2026-107997↗Vendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security↗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-2026-114730 · cve.blacktree.nl