Filtered by vendor Sendmail Subscriptions
Total 33 CVE
CVE Vendors Products Updated CVSS v3.1
CVE-2001-1349 2 Redhat, Sendmail 2 Linux, Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail before 8.11.4, and 8.12.0 before 8.12.0.Beta10, allows local users to cause a denial of service and possibly corrupt the heap and gain privileges via race conditions in signal handlers.
CVE-2002-1337 8 Gentoo, Hp, Netbsd and 5 more 11 Linux, Alphaserver Sc, Hp-ux and 8 more 2025-04-03 N/A
Buffer overflow in Sendmail 5.79 to 8.12.7 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via certain formatted address fields, related to sender and recipient header comments as processed by the crackaddr function of headers.c.
CVE-2003-0308 2 Debian, Sendmail 2 Debian Linux, Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
The Sendmail 8.12.3 package in Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 does not securely create temporary files, which could allow local users to gain additional privileges via (1) expn, (2) checksendmail, or (3) doublebounce.pl.
CVE-1999-0478 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Denial of service in HP-UX sendmail 8.8.6 related to accepting connections.
CVE-2001-0653 2 Redhat, Sendmail 2 Linux, Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail 8.10.0 through 8.11.5, and 8.12.0 beta, allows local users to modify process memory and possibly gain privileges via a large value in the 'category' part of debugger (-d) command line arguments, which is interpreted as a negative number.
CVE-2006-0058 2 Redhat, Sendmail 2 Enterprise Linux, Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Signal handler race condition in Sendmail 8.13.x before 8.13.6 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by triggering timeouts in a way that causes the setjmp and longjmp function calls to be interrupted and modify unexpected memory locations.
CVE-2005-2070 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
The ClamAV Mail fILTER (clamav-milter) 0.84 through 0.85d, when used in Sendmail using long timeouts, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service by keeping an open connection, which prevents ClamAV from reloading.
CVE-2002-1165 3 Netbsd, Redhat, Sendmail 4 Netbsd, Enterprise Linux, Linux and 1 more 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail Consortium's Restricted Shell (SMRSH) in Sendmail 8.12.6, 8.11.6-15, and possibly other versions after 8.11 from 5/19/1998, allows attackers to bypass the intended restrictions of smrsh by inserting additional commands after (1) "||" sequences or (2) "/" characters, which are not properly filtered or verified.
CVE-1999-1309 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail before 8.6.7 allows local users to gain root access via a large value in the debug (-d) command line option.
CVE-2002-2423 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail 8.12.0 through 8.12.6 truncates log messages longer than 100 characters, which allows remote attackers to prevent the IP address from being logged via a long IDENT response.
CVE-2003-0688 6 Compaq, Freebsd, Openbsd and 3 more 7 Tru64, Freebsd, Openbsd and 4 more 2025-04-03 N/A
The DNS map code in Sendmail 8.12.8 and earlier, when using the "enhdnsbl" feature, does not properly initialize certain data structures, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (process crash) via an invalid DNS response that causes Sendmail to free incorrect data.
CVE-2023-51765 3 Freebsd, Redhat, Sendmail 3 Freebsd, Enterprise Linux, Sendmail 2024-11-21 5.3 Medium
sendmail through 8.17.2 allows SMTP smuggling in certain configurations. Remote attackers can use a published exploitation technique to inject e-mail messages with a spoofed MAIL FROM address, allowing bypass of an SPF protection mechanism. This occurs because sendmail supports <LF>.<CR><LF> but some other popular e-mail servers do not. This is resolved in 8.18 and later versions with 'o' in srv_features.
CVE-2021-3618 5 Debian, F5, Fedoraproject and 2 more 5 Debian Linux, Nginx, Fedora and 2 more 2024-11-21 7.4 High
ALPACA is an application layer protocol content confusion attack, exploiting TLS servers implementing different protocols but using compatible certificates, such as multi-domain or wildcard certificates. A MiTM attacker having access to victim's traffic at the TCP/IP layer can redirect traffic from one subdomain to another, resulting in a valid TLS session. This breaks the authentication of TLS and cross-protocol attacks may be possible where the behavior of one protocol service may compromise the other at the application layer.