CVE-2023-50456VulnerabilityPublished 10 Dec 2023Updated 27 May 2025

CVE-2023-50456: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 6.2.0 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 18:53 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 38% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.2.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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 Dec 2023
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 2026-10-25.

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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
n/a n/a	Affected <6.2.0	Fixed in 6.2.0

AI-suggested

European organizations should prioritize upgrading Zammad installations to version 6.2.0 or later, where this vulnerability is addressed. Until an upgrade is possible, administrators should implement strict input validation and sanitization on user-supplied fields, especially first and last names, to block or neutralize malicious URL payloads. Email templates used for notifications should be reviewed and hardened to avoid rendering untrusted input as clickable links. Employing email security gateways with phishing detection and URL rewriting can help mitigate risk by warning users or blocking malicious links. User awareness training focused on recognizing phishing attempts originating from internal systems is also recommended. Monitoring email logs for unusual link patterns or spikes in phishing reports can provide early detection of exploitation attempts. Finally, organizations should maintain up-to-date incident response plans to quickly address any phishing incidents stemming from this vulnerability.

Description

An issue was discovered in Zammad before 6.2.0. An attacker can trigger phishing links in generated notification emails via a crafted first or last name.

Impact

For European organizations using Zammad as their helpdesk or customer support solution, this vulnerability poses a risk of phishing attacks delivered through legitimate notification emails. Such attacks could undermine user trust, lead to credential compromise, and facilitate further network intrusion or data exfiltration. Since Zammad is often integrated with internal ticketing and communication workflows, successful exploitation could disrupt operational processes and expose sensitive customer or internal information. The impact is particularly significant for organizations with large user bases receiving frequent notifications, as the attack surface is broad. Additionally, phishing attacks exploiting this vulnerability could be used as a vector for targeted attacks against European enterprises, potentially affecting sectors like finance, healthcare, and government where helpdesk systems are critical. The medium severity rating suggests a moderate but non-negligible risk, emphasizing the need for timely mitigation to prevent exploitation.

CWE-601URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: LowOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Site Flashing (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

zammad.com/en/advisories/zaa-2023-07 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Jul 2025, 03:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-601

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats