VulnerabilityPublished 12 Aug 2024Updated 13 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-27442: Zimbra Collaboration · Improper Privilege Management

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.8High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 12 Aug 2024
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 26 Oct 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-27442, organizations should: 1) Apply official patches or updates from Zimbra as soon as they become available to address the improper input handling in zmmailboxdmgr. 2) Restrict local access to the zimbra user account by enforcing strict access controls, limiting login capabilities, and monitoring for unauthorized usage. 3) Employ application whitelisting and process monitoring to detect anomalous executions of zmmailboxdmgr or suspicious command invocations. 4) Harden the underlying operating system by disabling unnecessary services and enforcing the principle of least privilege for all users and processes. 5) Conduct regular audits of user permissions and system logs to identify potential exploitation attempts early. 6) Consider deploying intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) tuned to detect privilege escalation behaviors. 7) Educate system administrators and security teams about the vulnerability and ensure incident response plans include procedures for local privilege escalation scenarios. 8) If patching is delayed, consider temporary workarounds such as removing or restricting execution permissions on the vulnerable binary, though this may impact functionality and should be tested carefully.

Description

An issue was discovered in Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) 9.0 and 10.0. The zmmailboxdmgr binary, a component of ZCS, is intended to be executed by the zimbra user with root privileges for specific mailbox operations. However, an attacker can escalate privileges from the zimbra user to root, because of improper handling of input arguments. An attacker can execute arbitrary commands with elevated privileges, leading to local privilege escalation.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-27442 is significant for organizations using Zimbra Collaboration Suite versions 9.0 and 10.0. Successful exploitation grants attackers root-level access from the zimbra user account, effectively compromising the entire system. This can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive email data, modification or deletion of mailboxes, installation of persistent malware, and disruption of mail services. The elevated privileges also allow attackers to bypass security controls, escalate lateral movement within the network, and potentially pivot to other critical infrastructure. Given Zimbra’s widespread use in enterprises, government agencies, and educational institutions, this vulnerability poses a serious risk to confidentiality, integrity, and availability of communications and data. The local access requirement limits remote exploitation but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments where the zimbra user account is accessible or where attackers have gained initial footholds. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate threat but does not preclude future exploitation. Organizations failing to address this vulnerability may face data breaches, operational disruptions, and reputational damage.

CWE-269Improper Privilege Management (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Restful Privilege Elevation (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Abuse (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Escalation (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 22:41 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-269

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats