VulnerabilityPublished 24 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-3054: Alinto SOGo · Cross-site Scripting

Affects Alinto SOGoSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 4.0 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 39% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 24 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 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.
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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
AlintoSOGo	Affected =5.12.3 =5.12.4	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (1)

cpe:2.3:a:alinto:sogo:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

Given the absence of official patches, organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. First, deploy web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block malicious payloads targeting the 'hint' parameter or suspicious script injections. Second, enforce strict Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to restrict the execution of unauthorized scripts in browsers accessing SOGo. Third, educate users to avoid clicking on suspicious links and to report unusual behavior. Fourth, consider isolating or restricting access to the affected SOGo instances to trusted networks or VPNs to reduce exposure. Fifth, monitor logs for unusual requests containing script payloads targeting the vulnerable parameter. Finally, plan for an upgrade or patch deployment once the vendor releases a fix or consider migrating to alternative groupware solutions with active security support. Regular backups and incident response readiness are also recommended to mitigate potential impacts.

Description

A vulnerability was identified in Alinto SOGo 5.12.3/5.12.4. This impacts an unknown function. The manipulation of the argument hint leads to cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

The exploitation of CVE-2026-3054 can lead to significant security risks for organizations relying on Alinto SOGo versions 5.12.3 and 5.12.4. Successful XSS attacks can result in session hijacking, allowing attackers to impersonate legitimate users and access sensitive email and calendar data. Attackers may also steal authentication tokens or credentials, leading to further compromise of internal systems. Additionally, malicious scripts could be used to perform phishing attacks, redirect users to malicious websites, or deploy malware. Since SOGo is often used in enterprise environments for collaboration, the confidentiality and integrity of communications could be severely impacted. The lack of vendor response and absence of patches increase the window of exposure. Organizations may face data breaches, regulatory compliance issues, and reputational damage if the vulnerability is exploited. The availability impact is minimal, but the confidentiality and integrity impacts are moderate to high depending on the context of use.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…