CVE-2026-126619VulnerabilityPublished 11 Nov 2026

Misinterpretation of SQL Statement Text

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-126619· Medium 4.8

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.8 Medium.

Data as of 11 Nov 2026, 10:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.8Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitLab)	CVSS 3.1	4.8

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: 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: 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 on 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 11 Nov 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 10 Nov 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.

ghsa-5xgg-6cxw-qr32

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Progressive Robot LtdhMailServer	Affected >=6.0.0-B1 <=6.3.7	Fixed in–
GitHubhmailserver/hmailserver`pkg:github/hmailserver/hmailserver`Other threats	Affected >=6.0.0-B1 <=6.3.7	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Until a fix is available, administrators should be aware of the potential for silent failures in database writes and consider monitoring message delivery and ban enforcement through alternative means. No generic mitigations are recommended beyond vendor guidance.

Description

A vulnerability in Progressive Robot hMailServer versions 6.0.0-B1 through 6.3.7 causes the database layer to misinterpret failed SQL write statements as successful under certain conditions. This occurs due to improper handling of the [IGNORE-ERRORS] marker in SQL statements, leading to silent failures of database writes such as message deliveries, auto-ban entries, and message metadata. The flaw does not allow altering statement behavior or privilege escalation but can cause loss of data consistency and inaccurate server state reporting.

Impact

The vulnerability allows remote unauthenticated attackers to cause failed database writes to be reported as successful, leading to silent loss of data such as undelivered messages, unlogged auto-ban entries, and missing message metadata. This can result in messages being accepted by the server but never delivered, bans not being applied despite logging, and incomplete logging of server events. There is no impact on confidentiality or availability, and no privilege escalation is possible. The overall impact is limited to data integrity and operational accuracy.

CWE-115Misinterpretation of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product misinterprets an input, whether from an attacker or another product, in a security-relevant fashion.
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)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.5 (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 2026, 10:05 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-115

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats