Search Results (33 CVEs found)

CVE Vendors Products Updated CVSS v3.1
CVE-2006-1173 2 Redhat, Sendmail 2 Enterprise Linux, Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail before 8.13.7 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via deeply nested, malformed multipart MIME messages that exhaust the stack during the recursive mime8to7 function for performing 8-bit to 7-bit conversion, which prevents Sendmail from delivering queued messages and might lead to disk consumption by core dump files.
CVE-1999-1592 2 Sendmail, Sun 2 Sendmail, Sunos 2025-04-03 N/A
Multiple unspecified vulnerabilities in sendmail 5, as installed on Sun SunOS 4.1.3_U1 and 4.1.4, have unspecified attack vectors and impact. NOTE: this might overlap CVE-1999-0129.
CVE-2001-0714 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail before 8.12.1, without the RestrictQueueRun option enabled, allows local users to cause a denial of service (data loss) by (1) setting a high initial message hop count option (-h), which causes Sendmail to drop queue entries, (2) via the -qR option, or (3) via the -qS option.
CVE-2003-0161 5 Compaq, Hp, Redhat and 2 more 11 Tru64, Hp-ux, Hp-ux Series 700 and 8 more 2025-04-03 N/A
The prescan() function in the address parser (parseaddr.c) in Sendmail before 8.12.9 does not properly handle certain conversions from char and int types, which can cause a length check to be disabled when Sendmail misinterprets an input value as a special "NOCHAR" control value, allowing attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code via a buffer overflow attack using messages, a different vulnerability than CVE-2002-1337.
CVE-2001-0653 2 Redhat, Sendmail 2 Linux, Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail 8.10.0 through 8.11.5, and 8.12.0 beta, allows local users to modify process memory and possibly gain privileges via a large value in the 'category' part of debugger (-d) command line arguments, which is interpreted as a negative number.
CVE-2003-0688 6 Compaq, Freebsd, Openbsd and 3 more 7 Tru64, Freebsd, Openbsd and 4 more 2025-04-03 N/A
The DNS map code in Sendmail 8.12.8 and earlier, when using the "enhdnsbl" feature, does not properly initialize certain data structures, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (process crash) via an invalid DNS response that causes Sendmail to free incorrect data.
CVE-2002-1827 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail 8.9.0 through 8.12.3 allows local users to cause a denial of service by obtaining an exclusive lock on the (1) alias, (2) map, (3) statistics, and (4) pid files.
CVE-1999-1109 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail before 8.10.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service by sending a series of ETRN commands then disconnecting from the server, while Sendmail continues to process the commands after the connection has been terminated.
CVE-2001-1349 2 Redhat, Sendmail 2 Linux, Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail before 8.11.4, and 8.12.0 before 8.12.0.Beta10, allows local users to cause a denial of service and possibly corrupt the heap and gain privileges via race conditions in signal handlers.
CVE-2002-2261 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Sendmail 8.9.0 through 8.12.6 allows remote attackers to bypass relaying restrictions enforced by the 'check_relay' function by spoofing a blank DNS hostname.
CVE-1999-0478 1 Sendmail 1 Sendmail 2025-04-03 N/A
Denial of service in HP-UX sendmail 8.8.6 related to accepting connections.
CVE-2023-51765 3 Freebsd, Redhat, Sendmail 3 Freebsd, Enterprise Linux, Sendmail 2024-11-21 5.3 Medium
sendmail through 8.17.2 allows SMTP smuggling in certain configurations. Remote attackers can use a published exploitation technique to inject e-mail messages with a spoofed MAIL FROM address, allowing bypass of an SPF protection mechanism. This occurs because sendmail supports <LF>.<CR><LF> but some other popular e-mail servers do not. This is resolved in 8.18 and later versions with 'o' in srv_features.
CVE-2021-3618 5 Debian, F5, Fedoraproject and 2 more 5 Debian Linux, Nginx, Fedora and 2 more 2024-11-21 7.4 High
ALPACA is an application layer protocol content confusion attack, exploiting TLS servers implementing different protocols but using compatible certificates, such as multi-domain or wildcard certificates. A MiTM attacker having access to victim's traffic at the TCP/IP layer can redirect traffic from one subdomain to another, resulting in a valid TLS session. This breaks the authentication of TLS and cross-protocol attacks may be possible where the behavior of one protocol service may compromise the other at the application layer.