CVE-2026-126619

MEDIUMPre-NVD 4.84.8
EchelonGraph scoreHIGH confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 4.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: MODERATE) published 2026-11-11. A secondary CVSS source baseline 4.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, a secondary CVSS source

Also known asEUVD-2026-123336 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-5xgg-6cxw-qr32 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

4.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.3%CVSS: 4.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

Upgrade to hMailServer 6.3.8, which reads each string literal as the database engine reads it - a backslash as an escape only on MySQL/MariaDB, on PostgreSQL with standard_conforming_strings off and in PostgreSQL's E'..… (from the CVE record's solution, GitLab Inc.) — apply it.

Misinterpretation of SQL statement text in the database layer of Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0-B1 through 6.3.7 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to have a failed database write reported to the server as successful. The layer answers a failed statement as a success when it finds the marker [IGNORE-ERRORS], which is meant only for the server's own schema statements (its upgrade scripts and the database log's tables), and statements carry values from outside - an envelope address, the user name of a failed logon, a message's headers - in their text on MySQL/MariaDB and PostgreSQL, and in the batches of the database log on every engine. Up to 6.2.18 the marker was honoured anywhere in a statement, a value included, on MySQL/MariaDB and PostgreSQL. From 6.2.19 it was honoured only inside a comment, but the layer read a backslash inside a string literal as an escape, which SQL Server, SQL Server Compact and PostgreSQL with standard_conforming_strings on (its default) do not, so that on those engines a value holding a backslash could make the layer take part of the statement's literals for statement text and find the marker there: on PostgreSQL from 6.3.3 for every statement carrying an outside value that holds a backslash, with no setting changed for a message delivered into a local mailbox (through an internationalised (SMTPUTF8) envelope sender) and for the IP range an auto-ban writes (named after the user name of the failed logon), and on SQL Server and SQL Server Compact for the database log, when the server logs to the database (logging is off, and the log device is files, by default). A statement run outside a transaction that then failed - a constraint, a deadlock, a lock or statement timeout, a full disk, and up to 6.2.18 a lost connection - was answered as a success, and its caller went on as if the row had been written: a message delivered into a local mailbox could be counted as delivered with no row to show it and no failure notice to its sender, and a message accepted with 250 could be left with no queue row and never delivered (up to 6.2.18, and on PostgreSQL from 6.3.3 when every recipient's address carries the marker too, which needs an address that takes any local part); an auto-ban whose IP range was not written could be logged and counted as applied, with no error reported, while the address stayed unbanned; and message metadata (written only when message indexing is on), entries of the database log and rows of features an administrator turns on could be lost without an error. On MySQL/MariaDB up to 6.2.18 the caller was handed whatever identifier the client library still held for the connection - 0, or that of an insert its last successful statement made, in whatever table - under which a queued message's recipients were then written, so that another message still in the queue could be delivered to them as well. This flaw gives a value no way to change what a statement does, and no privilege is gained.

CVSS v3
4.8
EG Score
4.8MEDIUMhigh confidence
EG Risk
22
EG Risk 22/100

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)
Severity48% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 4.8 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 reads each string literal as the database engine reads it - a backslash as an escape only on MySQL/MariaDB, on PostgreSQL with standard_conforming_strings off and in PostgreSQL's E'..… (from the CVE record's solution, GitLab Inc.). Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.3%
EPSS %ILE
16th
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 (4.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
4.8 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.3% 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 reads each string literal as the database engine reads it - a backslash as an escape only on MySQL/MariaDB, on PostgreSQL with standard_conforming_strings off and in PostgreSQL's E'..… (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

References (2)

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-126619(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.

  1. 2026-11-12 19:11 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  2. 2026-11-12 19:11 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-5xgg-6cxw-qr32 · GitHub severity MODERATE · GitHub CVSS 4.8
  3. 2026-11-12 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  4. 2026-11-11 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  5. 2026-11-11 09:46 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  6. 2026-11-11 09:46 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-5xgg-6cxw-qr32 · GitHub severity MODERATE · GitHub CVSS 4.8
  7. 2026-11-11 09:27 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  8. 2026-11-11 09:00 UTCENISA EUVD ID recordedEUVD-2026-123336 · Source: ENISA EUVD
  9. 2026-11-11 08:39 UTCEchelonGraph re-scoredFirst assessed: 4.8 MEDIUM
  10. 2026-11-11 08:39 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Related CVEs(same CWE)

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-126619?
CVE-2026-126619 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on November 11, 2026. Misinterpretation of SQL statement text in the database layer of Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0-B1 through 6.3.7 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to have a failed database write reported to the server as successful. The layer answers a failed statement as a success when it finds the…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-126619 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-126619 was published on November 11, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of November 12, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-126619 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-126619 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.3% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (16th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-126619?
CVE-2026-126619 has a CVSS base score of 4.8 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-126619?
The CVE record's solution for CVE-2026-126619, written by its CNA GitLab Inc., names the fix: "Upgrade to hMailServer 6.3.8, which reads each string literal as the database engine reads it - a backslash as an escape only on MySQL/MariaDB, on PostgreSQL with standard_conforming_strings off and in PostgreSQL's E'..…" The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-126619 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-126619

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-126619?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.

Book a Demo →Browse All CVEs