Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

RoundCube Webmail Deserialization of Untrusted Data Vulnerability

Exploited · KEV 2026-02-20Metasploit moduleCVE-2025-49113CWE-502

Exploited since 2026-02-20. 2 of 8 rule sources name it; Cloudflare blocks by default. Our CRS test: partly blocked.

Edge rules
2/8
Our test
Partly blocked
CVSS
9.9
EPSS
99.5% Top 0.1%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-20: 0 posts2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts
Published
2025-06-02

Roundcube Webmail before 1.5.10 and 1.6.x before 1.6.11 allows remote code execution by authenticated users because the _from parameter in a URL is not validated in program/actions/settings/upload.php, leading to PHP Object Deserialization.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2025-49113: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1
Critical · 9.9 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with low privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability, and the impact can reach components beyond the vulnerable one.

Over the internetAny user loginNo user actionWorks reliablySpreads beyond the appFull compromise
How the score is built8 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an ordinary user account.
    Low
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • ScopeThe attack can spread beyond the vulnerable component to other parts of the system.
    Changed
  • Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
    High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationActive

Attackers are exploiting this in the wild.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

3 found
1 Metasploit1 Exploit-DB1 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2025-06-02
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2025-06-02
    Metasploit module published
    Roundcube Post-Auth RCE via PHP Object Deserialization
  3. 2025-06-13
    Exploit published on Exploit-DB
    Roundcube 1.6.10 - Remote Code Execution (RCE)
  4. 2025-06-16
    Cloudflare ships a rule
    Roundcube - Remote Code Execution - CVE:CVE-2025-49113
  5. 2025-06-30
    F5 ships a rule
    Roundcube Webmail RCE
  6. 2026-02-20
    Added to CISA KEV
    Confirmed exploitation in the wild
  7. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of it
    paranoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
  8. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of it
    paranoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings

Social

2026-10-20: 0 posts2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed Rules2 quotesBlocks by default

First rule 2025-06-16, 14 days after the CVE was published.

2025-06-16New rule…30baa18aDefault: BlockSource
Roundcube - Remote Code Execution - CVE:CVE-2025-49113. Previous action: Log. New action: Block. This is a New Detection
2025-07-07New rule…ab314023Default: DisabledSource
Roundcube - Remote Code Execution - CVE:CVE-2025-49113. Previous action: Log. New action: Disabled. This is a New Detection
AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

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)No public claim

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 rulesNo public claim

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 patchesBefore feed history

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)1 quoteRule published

First rule 2025-06-30, 28 days after the CVE was published.

2025-06-30New rule200204020Source
Added: signature 200204020 "Roundcube Webmail RCE" (Server Side Code Injection, risk High), systems: PHP, Other Web Server. References: CVE-2025-49113.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

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.