VulnerabilityPublished 10 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-126068: Possible signature replay in Action Mailbox Mailgun ingress

Affects actionmailboxSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-126068· Low 3.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low : upgrade to 8.1.4.1 when convenient.

Data as of 10 Nov 2026, 22:34 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	3.7

Patch: Available – fixed in 8.1.4.1, 8.0.5.2

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Nov 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 10 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade actionmailbox to 8.1.4.1; actionmailbox to 8.0.5.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
RubyGemsactionmailbox	Affected >=8.1.0.beta1 <8.1.4.1	Fixed in 8.1.4.1
RubyGemsactionmailbox	Affected <8.0.5.2	Fixed in 8.0.5.2

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

### Impact The Action Mailbox Mailgun ingress authenticates a request with an HMAC of the `timestamp` and `token` parameters concatenated without a separator, and `ActionMailbox::Ingresses::Mailgun::InboundEmailsController::Authenticator#recent?` rejects only timestamps more than 2 minutes in the past. Because the signature does not fix the boundary between the two values, a captured signed request can be presented with a timestamp far in the future, which the ingress then accepts indefinitely. An attacker who obtains one signed Mailgun webhook request, but not the signing key, could submit arbitrary inbound email that Action Mailbox processes as genuine, possibly leading to forged messages attributed to the sender of the attacker's choosing. Applications that receive inbound email through the Action Mailbox Mailgun ingress are affected. ### Details The fixed releases also reject a Mailgun request whose timestamp is more than 2 minutes ahead of the server's clock, as they already did for one more than 2 minutes behind it. An application whose clock runs more than 2 minutes behind Mailgun's will now reject genuine webhooks and should synchronize its clock. ### Releases The fixed releases are available at the normal locations. Patches for those who cannot upgrade at once: - 8.1: https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/c3a295c5c22266e8ec4d0e664e6923a299235e7a.patch - 8.0: https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/4aa2ec66822bc4eb8b341a0608f1c90a3e371a34.patch ### Credit This issue was responsibly reported by HackerOne researcher [davutselcuk](https://hackerone.com/davutselcuk).

CWE-294Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
A capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes).
Architecture and Design
Utilize some sequence or time stamping functionality along with a checksum which takes this into account in order to ensure that messages can be parsed only once.
Architecture and Design
Since any attacker who can listen to traffic can see sequence numbers, it is necessary to sign messages with some kind of cryptography to ensure that sequence numbers are not simply doctored along with content.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Session Sidejacking (opens in a new tab)
Kerberoasting (opens in a new tab)
Remote Services with Stolen Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Windows Admin Shares with Stolen Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay) (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-294

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats