Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 0.40% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-40566High confidence
FreeScout vulnerable to SSRF via IMAP/SMTP Connection Test Endpoints
freescout-help-desk · freescout
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-FG98-RGX6-8X4G ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
4.1MediumCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Fix not verifiedMedium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:High, raised one band.upgradedsince 21 Apr 2026
Compensating controls
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs freescout-help-desk freescout and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- 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 public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
FreeScout is a free self-hosted help desk and shared mailbox. Versions prior to 1.8.213 have a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the IMAP/SMTP connection test functionality of FreeScout's `MailboxesController`. Three AJAX actions `fetch_test` (line 731), `send_test` (line 682), and `imap_folders` (line 773) in `app/Http/Controllers/MailboxesController.php` pass admin-configured `in_server`/`in_port` and `out_server`/`out_port` values directly to `fsockopen()` via `Helper::checkPort()` and to IMAP/SMTP client connections with zero SSRF protection. There is no IP validation, no hostname restriction, no blocklist of internal ranges, and no call to the project's own `sanitizeRemoteUrl()` or `checkUrlIpAndHost()` functions. The validation block in `connectionIncomingSave()` is entirely commented out. An authenticated admin can configure a mailbox's IMAP or SMTP server to point at any internal host and port, then trigger a connection test. The server opens raw TCP connections (via `fsockopen()`) and protocol-level connections (via IMAP client or SMTP transport) to the attacker-specified target. The response differentiates open from closed ports, enabling internal network port scanning. When the IMAP client connects to a non-IMAP service, the target's service banner or error response is captured in the IMAP debug log and returned in the AJAX response's `log` field, making this a semi-blind SSRF that enables service fingerprinting. In cloud environments, the metadata endpoint at `169[.]254[.]169[.]254` can be probed and partial response data may be leaked through protocol error messages. This is distinct from the `sanitizeRemoteUrl()` redirect bypass (freescout-3) -- different code path, different root cause, different protocol layer. Version 1.8.213 patches the vulnerability.
What
FreeScout is a free self-hosted help desk and shared mailbox. Versions prior to 1.8.213 have a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the IMAP/SMTP connection test functionality of FreeScout's `MailboxesController`. Three AJAX actions `fetch_test` (line 731), `send_test` (line 682), and `imap_folders` (line 773) in `app/Http/Controllers/MailboxesController.php` pass admin-configured `in_server`/`in_port` and `out_server`/`out_port` values directly to `fsockopen()` via `Helper::checkPort()` and to IMAP/SMTP client connections with zero SSRF protection. There is no IP validation, no hostname restriction, no blocklist of internal ranges, and no call to the project's own `sanitizeRemoteUrl()` or `checkUrlIpAndHost()` functions. The validation block in `connectionIncomingSave()` is entirely commented out. An authenticated admin can configure a mailbox's IMAP or SMTP server to point at any internal host and port, then trigger a connection test. The server opens raw TCP connections (via `fsockopen()`) and protocol-level connections (via IMAP client or SMTP transport) to the attacker-specified target. The response differentiates open from closed ports, enabling internal network port scanning. When the IMAP client connects to a non-IMAP service, the target's service banner or error response is captured in the IMAP debug log and returned in the AJAX response's `log` field, making this a semi-blind SSRF that enables service fingerprinting. In cloud environments, the metadata endpoint at `169[.]254[.]169[.]254` can be probed and partial response data may be leaked through protocol error messages. This is distinct from the `sanitizeRemoteUrl()` redirect bypass (freescout-3) -- different code path, different root cause, different protocol layer. Version 1.8.213 patches the vulnerability.
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 with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
FreeScout is a free self-hosted help desk and shared mailbox. Versions prior to 1.8.213 have a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the IMAP/SMTP connection test functionality of FreeScout's `MailboxesController`. Three AJAX actions `fetch_test` (line 731), `send_test` (line 682), and `imap_folders` (line 773) in `app/Http/Controllers/MailboxesController.php` pass admin-configured `in_server`/`in_port` and `out_server`/`out_port` values directly to `fsockopen()` via `Helper::checkPort()` and to IMAP/SMTP client connections with zero SSRF protection. There is no IP validation, no hostname restriction, no blocklist of internal ranges, and no call to the project's own `sanitizeRemoteUrl()` or `checkUrlIpAndHost()` functions. The validation block in `connectionIncomingSave()` is entirely commented out. An authenticated admin can configure a mailbox's IMAP or SMTP server to point at any internal host and port, then trigger a connection test. The server opens raw TCP connections (via `fsockopen()`) and protocol-level connections (via IMAP client or SMTP transport) to the attacker-specified target. The response differentiates open from closed ports, enabling internal network port scanning. When the IMAP client connects to a non-IMAP service, the target's service banner or error response is captured in the IMAP debug log and returned in the AJAX response's `log` field, making this a semi-blind SSRF that enables service fingerprinting. In cloud environments, the metadata endpoint at `169[.]254[.]169[.]254` can be probed and partial response data may be leaked through protocol error messages. This is distinct from the `sanitizeRemoteUrl()` redirect bypass (freescout-3) -- different code path, different root cause, different protocol layer. Version 1.8.213 patches the vulnerability.
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 with elevated privileges. 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 Reference recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.
- 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
- High: elevated access is required
- 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:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/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.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRHighPrivileges required: The attacker needs elevated or administrative 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.INoneIntegrity impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.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.
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 not verified
- Affected
- freescout: < 1.8.213
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- 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 Apr 2026 · Last source change 21 Apr 2026, 17:33 UTC · CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-24167
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
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.