| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Mailman before 2.0.13 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via an email message with an empty subject field. |
| Mailman before 2.1.5 allows remote attackers to obtain user passwords via a crafted email request to the Mailman server. |
| The password generation in mailman before 2.1.5 generates only 5 million unique passwords, which makes it easier for remote attackers to guess passwords via a brute force attack. |
| Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the driver script in mailman before 2.1.5 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a URL, which is not properly escaped in the resulting error page. |
| Scrubber.py in Mailman 2.1.5-8 does not properly handle UTF8 character encodings in filenames of e-mail attachments, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash). |
| Mailman 2.1.4 through 2.1.6 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a message that causes the server to "fail with an Overflow on bad date data in a processed message," a different vulnerability than CVE-2005-3573. |
| Mailman before 2.1.9rc1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via unspecified vectors involving "standards-breaking RFC 2231 formatted headers". |
| CRLF injection vulnerability in Utils.py in Mailman before 2.1.9rc1 allows remote attackers to spoof messages in the error log and possibly trick the administrator into visiting malicious URLs via CRLF sequences in the URI. |
| Format string vulnerability in Mailman before 2.1.9 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors. NOTE: the vendor has disputed this vulnerability, stating that it is "unexploitable. |
| The wrapper program in mailman 2.0beta3 and 2.0beta4 does not properly cleanse untrusted format strings, which allows local users to gain privileges. |
| Cross-site scripting vulnerabilities in Mailman before 2.0.11 allow remote attackers to execute script via (1) the admin login page, or (2) the Pipermail index summaries. |
| Cross-site scripting vulnerability in Mailman before 2.0.12 allows remote attackers to execute script as other users via a subscriber's list subscription options in the (1) adminpw or (2) info parameters to the ml-name feature. |
| Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in options.py for Mailman 2.1 allows remote attackers to inject script or HTML into web pages via the (1) email or (2) language parameters. |
| Mailman 1.1 allows list administrators to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in the %(listname) macro expansion. |
| The attachment scrubber (Scrubber.py) in Mailman 2.1.5 and earlier, when using Python's library email module 2.5, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (mailing list delivery failure) via a multipart MIME message with a single part that has two blank lines between the first boundary and the end boundary. |
| An issue was discovered in Mailman Core before 3.3.5. An attacker with access to the REST API could use timing attacks to determine the value of the configured REST API password and then make arbitrary REST API calls. The REST API is bound to localhost by default, limiting the ability for attackers to exploit this, but can optionally be made to listen on other interfaces. |
| In GNU Mailman before 2.1.38, a list member or moderator can get a CSRF token and craft an admin request (using that token) to set a new admin password or make other changes. |
| In GNU Mailman before 2.1.36, the CSRF token for the Cgi/admindb.py admindb page contains an encrypted version of the list admin password. This could potentially be cracked by a moderator via an offline brute-force attack. |
| In GNU Mailman before 2.1.36, a crafted URL to the Cgi/options.py user options page can execute arbitrary JavaScript for XSS. |
| GNU Mailman before 2.1.35 may allow remote Privilege Escalation. A csrf_token value is not specific to a single user account. An attacker can obtain a value within the context of an unprivileged user account, and then use that value in a CSRF attack against an admin (e.g., for account takeover). |
