CVE-2026-114717VulnerabilityPublished 22 Oct 2026Updated 30 Oct 2026

Roundcube Webmail before 1.6.20 and 1.7.x before 1.7.5 is affected by a mail header injection vulnerability when a

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-114717· Medium 4.0

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.0 Medium : upgrade to 1.7.5 or 1.6.20 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 17:17 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.0Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (mitre)	CVSS 3.1	4.0

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.7.5, 1.6.20

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: 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: 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 22 Oct 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 30 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.

ghsa-8246-wqv2-g48f

What to do

Upgrade Webmail to 1.7.5 or 1.6.20.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
RoundcubeWebmail	Affected >=1.7.0 <1.7.5	Fixed in 1.7.5
RoundcubeWebmail	Affected >=1.6.0 <1.6.20	Fixed in 1.6.20
GitHubWebmail`pkg:github/Webmail`Other threats	Affected >=1.6.0 <1.6.20 >=1.7.0 <1.7.5	Fixed in 1.6.20 1.7.5

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Roundcube Webmail to version 1.6.20 or later, or 1.7.5 or later, where the vulnerability has been fixed. The fix involves collapsing whitespace in the generated attachment name to prevent mail header injection. No other mitigation is indicated or required.

Description

Roundcube Webmail versions before 1.6.20 and 1.7.x before 1.7.5 contain a mail header injection vulnerability. This occurs when forwarding a message as an attachment, where the subject line is used directly to name the attachment. If the subject contains CRLF sequences, it can inject arbitrary MIME part headers into the outgoing message. The issue has been fixed upstream by collapsing whitespace in the generated attachment name.

Impact

The vulnerability allows injection of arbitrary MIME part headers into outgoing messages when forwarding emails as attachments. This can lead to limited integrity impact on the message content or structure. There is no confidentiality or availability impact reported. The CVSS score of 4.0 (medium) reflects the limited impact and the requirement for user interaction and network attack vector with high attack complexity.

CWE-99Improper Control of Resource Identifiers (Resource Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the input before it is used as an identifier for a resource that may be outside the intended control sphere.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (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
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files (opens in a new tab)
Resource Injection (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 30 Oct 2026, 17:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-99

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats