VulnerabilityPublished 18 Mar 2024Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-28054: amavis · Interpretation Conflict

Affects amavisSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High : upgrade to 2.13.1 or 2.12.3 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 57% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.13.1, 2.12.3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 Mar 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

Upgrade amavis/amavis to 2.13.1 or 2.12.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubamavis/amavis`pkg:github/amavis/amavis`Other threats	Affected <2.12.3 >=2.13.0 <2.13.1	Fixed in 2.12.3 2.13.1

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Amavis to version 2.12.3 or later, or 2.13.1 or later, as soon as these patched versions become available to address the MIME boundary parsing issue.
If you cannot patch yet, implement additional email security layers such as sandboxing suspicious attachments, deploying alternative or complementary email scanning solutions, or using advanced threat protection services that do not rely solely on Amavis.
Monitor email logs for unusual MIME boundary usage or suspicious email patterns that could indicate exploitation attempts.
Conduct regular security awareness training for staff to recognize phishing and malicious email indicators, reducing the risk of successful payload execution.
Employ network-level protections such as intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) tuned to detect anomalous email traffic.
Maintain up-to-date backups and incident response plans to quickly recover from potential malware infections that bypass email filters.
Engage with vendors and open-source communities for timely updates and advisories related to Amavis and MIME-tools.

Description

Amavis before 2.12.3 and 2.13.x before 2.13.1, in part because of its use of MIME-tools, has an Interpretation Conflict (relative to some mail user agents) when there are multiple boundary parameters in a MIME email message. Consequently, there can be an incorrect check for banned files or malware.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2024-28054 can be substantial, particularly for those relying on Amavis as part of their email security infrastructure. Successful exploitation could allow malware, ransomware, or other malicious attachments to bypass email scanning, increasing the risk of infection, data breaches, or lateral movement within networks. Confidentiality could be compromised if sensitive information is exfiltrated via malicious emails that evade detection. Integrity of email content and filtering policies could be undermined, leading to trust issues and potential regulatory non-compliance under GDPR if malware leads to data loss or exposure. The absence of known exploits in the wild provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the high severity score underscores the urgency. Organizations with high email volumes and critical communications, such as financial institutions, healthcare providers, and government agencies, face elevated risks.

CWE-436Interpretation Conflict (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
HTTP Request Splitting (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Response Smuggling (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Response Splitting (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

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Nov 2025, 21:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-436

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats