Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.3.4 through 6.3.7, with a MySQL or MariaDB database and TlsMode=verify-full, does not hand the database client the CA file that TlsCaFile names when the file's name contains a character outside ASCII on Linux, or above U+00FF on Windows, which allows an attacker who can intercept the connection to the database server to read and modify the traffic between hMailServer and its database, by presenting, with MariaDB Connector/C 3.4.2 to 3.4.10 as the client, a certificate from any authority, its own included, for any name, and otherwise a certificate for the database server's name issued by any certificate authority in the system's trust store. The server converted the name for the client with the C runtime's conversion in the C locale, which gives an empty string for such a name, and then set no CA file at all, without an error, while certificate verification stayed on, so the client - MariaDB Connector/C, bundled on Windows and the distribution's on Linux - verified the certificate of a database server over the network against the system's trust store instead of the configured CA; Connector/C 3.4.2 to 3.4.10 (bundled on Windows in 6.3.4 to 6.3.6) went further and, with no CA file, took a certificate within its dates whose issuer it could not find, for any name, with neither its chain nor its name checked and no password proof, when the server offered first a sign-in method that hashes the password, which an attacker in the middle chooses (MariaDB's CONC-853, fixed in Connector/C 3.4.11), and Connector/C 3.4 accepted from a MariaDB 11.4 or later server a certificate the store did not vouch for when that server proved it held the account's password; on a connection it treats as local (127.0.0.1, ::1, a Unix socket, a named pipe, and localhost on Windows), Connector/C 3.4.1 and later checked neither the certificate's issuer nor its name, so that a local attacker able to stand in for the database server could present any certificate within its dates of its own making. The settings line of hmailserver --check-database still named the configured file, and the application log said the certificate had been checked. With MariaDB Connector/C 3.4.1 to 3.4.9 as the client - bundled on Windows in 6.3.4 to 6.3.6, and the client of Linux distributions that have not patched it - the missing CA file also met the precondition of CVE-2026-107819, so that a certificate issued for any other name by a trusted authority was enough to obtain the database password. On Linux the file was found only when the server ran on glibc under a locale whose character set holds the name's characters (a UTF-8 locale, or a legacy 8-bit one the system has, in whose bytes the file is then named); with no locale, LC_ALL=C or a locale the system lacks, and on Alpine (musl), the connection failed instead. The configuration is not the default: TlsMode defaults to prefer, which checks no certificate.
CVE-2026-126610
“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.
Score 7.4 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-11-11. A secondary CVSS source baseline 7.4; sources differ by 0.0.
Also known asEUVD-2026-123324 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-7748-8wp3-j5hq (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD
- High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
Upgrade to hMailServer 6.3.8, which hands the database client the CA file's name in the encoding the client opens it in - UTF-8 on Linux whatever the locale, the ANSI code page on Windows - and refuses before connecting… (from the CVE record's solution, GitLab Inc.) — apply it.
- CVSS v3
- 7.4
- EG Score
- 7.4HIGHhigh confidence
- EG Risk
- 33EG Risk 33/100
EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.
How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)Severity74% × 45%Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.4 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.Exploitation0.2% × 40%FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.Automatability0% × 15%CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.Action: Upgrade to hMailServer 6.3.8, which hands the database client the CA file's name in the encoding the client opens it in - UTF-8 on Linux whatever the locale, the ANSI code page on Windows - and refuses before connecting… (from the CVE record's solution, GitLab Inc.). Apply it within your standard update timelines. - EPSS PROB
- 0.2%
- EPSS %ILE
- 6th
- KEV
- Not listed
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.4): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.4 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.4 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Upgrade to hMailServer 6.3.8, which hands the database client the CA file's name in the encoding the client opens it in - UTF-8 on Linux whatever the locale, the ANSI code page on Windows - and refuses before connecting… (from the CVE record's solution, GitLab Inc.). Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it
Published
November 11, 2026
Last Modified
November 12, 2026
Advisory Details (2)
Auto-updated Nov 11, 2026hMailServer 6.3.8 · hmailserver / hMailServer · GitLab
https://gitlab.com/hmailserver/hmailserver/-/releases/v6.3.8Database TLS: verify-full on MySQL and MariaDB dropped TlsCaFile when its name held a character outside ASCII (on Windows, above U+00FF), checking the certificate against the system's trust store or against nothing but its dates (6.3.4 to 6.3.7) (#112) · Issues · hmailserver / hMailServer · GitLab
https://gitlab.com/hmailserver/hmailserver/-/work_items/112Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-126610(1)
These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.
Weakness Classification(1)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 6× in last 7d / 6× in last 30d)
Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.
- 2026-11-12 19:08 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
- 2026-11-12 19:08 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-7748-8wp3-j5hq · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.4
- 2026-11-12 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
- 2026-11-11 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
- 2026-11-11 09:46 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
- 2026-11-11 09:46 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-7748-8wp3-j5hq · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.4
- 2026-11-11 09:27 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
- 2026-11-11 09:00 UTCENISA EUVD ID recordedEUVD-2026-123324 · Source: ENISA EUVD
- 2026-11-11 08:39 UTCEchelonGraph re-scoredFirst assessed: 7.4 HIGH
- 2026-11-11 08:39 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked
Related CVEs(same CWE)
Frequently asked(5)
What is CVE-2026-126610?
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-126610 published?
Is CVE-2026-126610 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-126610?
How do I remediate CVE-2026-126610?
Dependency Blast Radius
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-126610
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-126610?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.