VulnerabilityPublished 5 Nov 2025Updated 13 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-61084: Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 5 Nov 2025
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 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

European organizations using MDaemon Mail Server 23.5.2 should immediately assess their exposure to this vulnerability. Email administrators should implement additional email gateway filtering rules to normalize or reject headers with unusual Unicode whitespace characters. Deploying advanced anti-phishing and email security solutions that perform heuristic and behavioral analysis can help detect spoofed emails that bypass SPF/DKIM/DMARC. Organizations should educate users to be vigilant about unexpected or suspicious emails, even if they appear to come from trusted senders. Monitoring email logs for unusual patterns or repeated spoofing attempts is recommended. If possible, consider deploying client-side protections that detect UI spoofing or visual anomalies in sender addresses. Coordination with MDaemon support and monitoring for official patches or updates is critical. Finally, organizations should review and strengthen their incident response plans to quickly address any phishing or spoofing incidents arising from this vulnerability.

Description

MDaemon Mail Server 23.5.2 validates SPF, DKIM, and DMARC using the email enclosed in angle brackets (<>) in the From: header of SMTP DATA. An attacker can craft a From: header with multiple invisible Unicode thin spaces to display a spoofed sender while passing validation, allowing email spoofing even when anti-spoofing protections are in place. NOTE: this is disputed by the Supplier because UI spoofing occurs in a client, not in a server such as MDaemon's product or any other server implementation. Also, if a client without its own spoofing protection must be used, the Header Screening feature in MDaemon's product can be employed to mitigate the client-side vulnerability.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to email integrity and trustworthiness. Attackers exploiting this flaw can send spoofed emails that bypass SPF, DKIM, and DMARC protections, increasing the likelihood of successful phishing campaigns, malware delivery, or business email compromise. This can lead to data breaches, financial fraud, reputational damage, and operational disruption. Organizations relying on MDaemon Mail Server for critical communications may see increased targeted attacks exploiting this spoofing vector. The lack of user interaction required and remote exploitability make it easier for attackers to leverage this vulnerability at scale. Additionally, sectors such as finance, government, healthcare, and critical infrastructure in Europe, which are frequent phishing targets, may be disproportionately impacted. The dispute by the supplier about the nature of the vulnerability may delay patching or mitigation efforts, increasing exposure. However, the availability of the Header Screening feature provides a practical mitigation path to reduce risk. Overall, the vulnerability undermines the effectiveness of widely adopted email authentication standards, potentially eroding trust in email communications within affected organizations.

CWE-116Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Content Security Policy (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
Query Parameterization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V14.4.6 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
User-Controlled Filename (opens in a new tab)
Web Server Logs Tampering (opens in a new tab)
AJAX Footprinting (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/x00nullbit/CVE-References/blob/main/CVE-2025-61084/README.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Nov 2025, 16:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-116, CWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats