Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0-B1 through 6.3.7 on Windows hands OpenSSL the names of its own TLS files - the listeners' certificates, chains, private keys and Diffie-Hellman parameters, a port's client-certificate CA file (from 6.2.19), the object store's CA file (from 6.3.4) and the ACME client's keys and certificates - as Latin-1 bytes, which on code page 1252 are the code page's own for U+00A0 to U+00FF, and OpenSSL's file opening on Windows reads a name as UTF-8 first and opens the file at that reading when it is there, or creates it there when its folder is. When every byte of a configured name outside ASCII also reads as UTF-8 - for example U+00C3 U+00A9, the bytes C3 A9, which are U+00E9 in UTF-8 - the server used the file at that other name whenever one was there, which allows a local attacker who can create that file or its folder but cannot change the configured one, as any user can by default beside a file an administrator keeps under ProgramData, to have a port that logs on by client certificate (from 6.2.25) accept certificates from a certificate authority of the attacker's own and so sign in over the network as any mailbox without its password; to have the server trust such an authority for its object store and, intercepting that connection, read and modify the messages it stores; to receive the private keys the ACME client writes, the key of a certificate issued for the server's names among them; or to keep TLS ports from starting. The configuration is not the default: by default these files have names in ASCII, client certificates are off on every port, and the object store and ACME are off. The Linux builds are not affected.
CVE-2026-126621
“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.
Score 7.5 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-11-11. A secondary CVSS source baseline 7.5; sources differ by 0.0.
Also known asEUVD-2026-123337 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-2q54-5c4c-vg9w (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD
- High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
Upgrade to hMailServer 6.3.8, which on Windows hands OpenSSL the name of each of these files in the code page and refuses, with HM7536 in the error log, a name with a character the code page does not have or whose bytes… (from the CVE record's solution, GitLab Inc.) — apply it.
- CVSS v3
- 7.5
- EG Score
- 7.5HIGHhigh confidence
- EG Risk
- 34EG Risk 34/100
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)Severity75% × 45%Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.5 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 on Windows hands OpenSSL the name of each of these files in the code page and refuses, with HM7536 in the error log, a name with a character the code page does not have or whose bytes… (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 (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 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 on Windows hands OpenSSL the name of each of these files in the code page and refuses, with HM7536 in the error log, a name with a character the code page does not have or whose bytes… (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/v6.3.8TLS files on Windows: a certificate, key or CA file the server hands to OpenSSL by a name whose bytes outside ASCII also read as UTF-8 was read from, or written to, the file the name gives in UTF-8, which a local user can create (6.0.0-B1 to 6.3.7) (#115) · Issues · hmailserver / hMailServer · GitLab
https://gitlab.com/hmailserver/hmailserver/-/work_items/115Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-126621(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-2q54-5c4c-vg9w · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
- 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-2q54-5c4c-vg9w · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
- 2026-11-11 09:27 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
- 2026-11-11 09:00 UTCENISA EUVD ID recordedEUVD-2026-123337 · Source: ENISA EUVD
- 2026-11-11 08:44 UTCEchelonGraph re-scoredFirst assessed: 7.5 HIGH
- 2026-11-11 08:44 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked
Related CVEs(same CWE)
Frequently asked(5)
What is CVE-2026-126621?
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-126621 published?
Is CVE-2026-126621 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-126621?
How do I remediate CVE-2026-126621?
Dependency Blast Radius
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-126621
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-126621?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.