MDaemon Email Server Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Vulnerability
Exploited since 2025-05-19. No WAF vendor names it yet.
An XSS issue was discovered in MDaemon Email Server before version 24.5.1c. An attacker can send an HTML e-mail message with JavaScript in an img tag. This could allow a remote attacker to load arbitrary JavaScript code in the… More
An XSS issue was discovered in MDaemon Email Server before version 24.5.1c. An attacker can send an HTML e-mail message with JavaScript in an img tag. This could allow a remote attacker to load arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of a webmail user's browser window.
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 4.0Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and some user interaction, leading to low impact on confidentiality and integrity; other systems can also be hit (low impact on confidentiality and integrity).
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Attack requirementsThe attack works without any special deployment or timing conditions.None
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionA user has to do something ordinary, such as visit a page or open a file.Passive
- Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read some data, but has no control over what they get.Low
- Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change some data, but with limited control or limited effect.Low
- Availability impact (vulnerable system)The component keeps working normally.None
- Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems that rely on it can have some data read.Low
- Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems that rely on it can have some data changed.Low
- Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.None
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:NAttackers are exploiting this in the wild.
At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.
A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.
Public exploits
None foundNo exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.
Timeline
- 2024-11-15CVE publishedCVE List
- 2025-05-19Added to CISA KEVConfirmed exploitation in the wild
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.