VulnerabilityPublished 4 May 2026

CVE-2026-43861: mutt before 2.3.2 does not check for '\0' in url_pct_decode

Source GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-43861· Low 3.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low.

Data as of 27 Oct 2026, 01:14 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

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

Affects: mutt prior to 2.3.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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 4 May 2026
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.

ghsa-9mq4-23j6-p23w

What to do

Description

A vulnerability exists in mutt versions prior to 2.3.2 where the function url_pct_decode does not properly check for the null character '\0'. This flaw may lead to limited impact on the integrity of the application but does not affect confidentiality or availability.

Impact

The vulnerability impacts the integrity of the mutt application by allowing potential manipulation through malformed URL decoding. There is no impact on confidentiality or availability according to the CVSS vector and description.

Summary

The mutt email client before version 2.3.2 contains a vulnerability identified as CVE-2026-43861. The issue arises because the url_pct_decode function fails to check for the presence of the null character '\0'. This improper validation could potentially allow an attacker to influence the integrity of the application, although no confidentiality or availability impact is indicated. The CVSS v3.1 base score is 3.7, reflecting a low severity with network attack vector, high attack complexity, no privileges required, no user interaction, and unchanged scope.

CWE-158Improper Neutralization of Null Byte or NUL Character (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes NUL characters or null bytes when they are sent to a downstream component.
Developers should anticipate that null characters or null bytes will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding NULL Bytes (opens in a new tab)
Postfix, Null Terminate, and Backslash (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Oct 2026, 01:14 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-158

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats