Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.25% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-56727High confidence
Zammad: PGP signature spoofing via unvalidated verification return
zammad · zammad
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-56JC-34C8-2XQ4 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
7.1HighCVSS 4.0
Within 7 days
Patch availableHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, 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 zammad zammad 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.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
Zammad is a web based open source helpdesk/customer support system. Prior to 7.0.2, summary In Zammad's inbound PGP email processing, the return value of the gpg verification call was silently discarded. Regardless of whether gpg reported a valid, invalid, or missing signature, the handler unconditionally wrote sign: { success: true, comment: "Good signature" } to the article's security preferences. Impact Any sender could tamper with the body of a multipart/signed PGP email, or craft a message with an entirely fabricated or mismatched signature, and Zammad would display it to the recipient as cryptographically verified with a "Good signature" label. Users and agents relying on Zammad's signature indicator to confirm message authenticity and integrity would be misled into trusting modified or forged content. The vulnerability affects all inbound PGP-signed emails processed while the PGP integration is enabled. This issue is fixed in version 7.0.2.
What
Zammad is a web based open source helpdesk/customer support system. Prior to 7.0.2, summary In Zammad's inbound PGP email processing, the return value of the gpg verification call was silently discarded. Regardless of whether gpg reported a valid, invalid, or missing signature, the handler unconditionally wrote sign: { success: true, comment: "Good signature" } to the article's security preferences. Impact Any sender could tamper with the body of a multipart/signed PGP email, or craft a message with an entirely fabricated or mismatched signature, and Zammad would display it to the recipient as cryptographically verified with a "Good signature" label. Users and agents relying on Zammad's signature indicator to confirm message authenticity and integrity would be misled into trusting modified or forged content. The vulnerability affects all inbound PGP-signed emails processed while the PGP integration is enabled. This issue is fixed in version 7.0.2.
Why
The affected component does not establish the requesting party's identity reliably before granting access.
How
An attacker operating through a network path 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.
What
Zammad is a web based open source helpdesk/customer support system. Prior to 7.0.2, summary In Zammad's inbound PGP email processing, the return value of the gpg verification call was silently discarded. Regardless of whether gpg reported a valid, invalid, or missing signature, the handler unconditionally wrote sign: { success: true, comment: "Good signature" } to the article's security preferences. Impact Any sender could tamper with the body of a multipart/signed PGP email, or craft a message with an entirely fabricated or mismatched signature, and Zammad would display it to the recipient as cryptographically verified with a "Good signature" label. Users and agents relying on Zammad's signature indicator to confirm message authenticity and integrity would be misled into trusting modified or forged content. The vulnerability affects all inbound PGP-signed emails processed while the PGP integration is enabled. This issue is fixed in version 7.0.2.
Why
The affected component does not establish the requesting party's identity reliably before granting access.
How
An attacker operating through a network path 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.
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 → Improper Authentication → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Passive interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-287 ↗
CWE-287: Improper Authentication. When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: 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.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIPassiveUser interaction: A user must unknowingly interact with the vulnerable system.VCNoneVulnerable-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SINoneSubsequent-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: 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. - Patch available
- Affected
- Zammad: < 7.0.2
- Fixed
- 7.0.2.
- 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 25 Sept 2026 · Last source change 25 Sept 2026, 17:42 UTC · CWE-287 · Improper Authentication
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-26
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-87214
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
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-87214 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-87214"}
- 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.