CVE-2026-43859VulnerabilityPublished 22 Jun 2026Updated 16 Sep 2026

SUSE mutt · Security update for mutt

Affects SUSE muttSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-43859· Low 3.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 5% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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
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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
SUSEsuse/mutt`pkg:rpm/suse/mutt`Other threats	Affected =2.2.14-150600.3.6.1	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

A security update has been released by the SUSE Product Security Team addressing all six vulnerabilities. Users should apply the official patches provided in the mutt package version 2.2.14-150600.3.6.1 for their respective SUSE Linux distributions on aarch64 and i586 architectures. Patch status is confirmed by the vendor advisory SUSE-SU-2026:2301-1. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying this update.

Description

This update for mutt fixes the following issues - CVE-2026-43859: `strfcpy` used instead of `memcpy` for the IMAP `auth_cram` MD5 digest (bsc#1263897). - CVE-2026-43860: truncation of `hash_passwd` by one byte for IMAP `auth_cram` MD5 digest (bsc#1263896). - CVE-2026-43861: missing check for `\0` in `url_pct_decode` (bsc#1263895). - CVE-2026-43862: mishandling of the `imap_auth_gss` security level (bsc#1263894). - CVE-2026-43863: infinite loop in `data_object_to_stream` in `crypt-gpgme.c` (bsc#1263893). - CVE-2026-43864: NULL pointer dereference in function `show_sig_summary` (bsc#1263892).

Impact

The vulnerabilities impact the security and stability of mutt's IMAP authentication and cryptographic processing. Issues such as improper memory copying, truncation, missing null checks, and NULL pointer dereferences can lead to potential crashes, denial of service, or incorrect authentication behavior. The infinite loop could cause resource exhaustion. However, no known exploits in the wild have been reported for these issues.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Jun 2026, 10:51 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats