CVE-2006-0709
published 2006-02-15CVE-2006-0709: Buffer overflow in Metamail 2.7-50 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via e-mail…
PriorityP431high7.5CVSS 2.0
AVNACLAuNCPIPAP
EPSS
6.27%
92.7th percentile
Buffer overflow in Metamail 2.7-50 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via e-mail messages with a long boundary attribute, a different vulnerability than CVE-2004-0105.
Affected
1 ranges
| Vendor | Product | Version range | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| metamail_corporation | metamail | — | — |
CVSS provenance
nvdv2.07.5HIGHAV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
vendor_redhat7.5HIGH
Stop checking back — get the weekly exploitation signal.
Every Monday: what got weaponized or added to CISA KEV in the last seven days — each CVE cross-linked to its PoC, Nuclei template, and detection rule. Free, one email a week, unsubscribe in one click.
Red Hat
security flaw
vendor_redhat·2006-02-12·CVSS 7.5
CVE-2006-0709 [HIGH] security flaw
security flaw
Buffer overflow in Metamail 2.7-50 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via e-mail messages with a long boundary attribute, a different vulnerability than CVE-2004-0105.
GHSA
GHSA-c93r-p92x-rrc3: Buffer overflow in Metamail 2
ghsa_unreviewed·2022-05-01·CVSS 7.5
CVE-2006-0709 [HIGH] GHSA-c93r-p92x-rrc3: Buffer overflow in Metamail 2
Buffer overflow in Metamail 2.7-50 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via e-mail messages with a long boundary attribute, a different vulnerability than CVE-2004-0105.
No detection rules found.
No public exploits indexed.
Bugzilla
CVE-2006-0709 security flaw
bugzilla·2018-08-16·CVSS 7.5
CVE-2006-0709 [HIGH] CVE-2006-0709 security flaw
CVE-2006-0709 security flaw
Flaw bug created to hold information about an old flaw we knew something about. For more details see the MITRE CVE description.
Discussion:
MITRE description:
Buffer overflow in Metamail 2.7-50 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via e-mail messages with a long boundary attribute, a different vulnerability than CVE-2004-0105.
Bugzilla
CVE-2006-0709 metamail buffer overflow
bugzilla·2006-03-13·CVSS 7.5
CVE-2006-0709 [HIGH] CVE-2006-0709 metamail buffer overflow
CVE-2006-0709 metamail buffer overflow
From Debian advisory:
"Ulf Harnhammar discoverd a buffer overflow in metamail, an implementation of
MIME (Multi-purpose Internet Mail Extensions), that could lead to a denial of
service or potentially execute arbitrary code when processing messages."
Afaict 7.3 is the only FL-maintained distro where metamail was included.
Discussion:
Fedora Legacy project has ended. These will not be fixed by Fedora Legacy.
Bugzilla
CVE-2006-0709 Metamail heap based buffer overflow
bugzilla·2006-02-15·CVSS 7.5
CVE-2006-0709 [HIGH] CVE-2006-0709 Metamail heap based buffer overflow
CVE-2006-0709 Metamail heap based buffer overflow
Metamail heap based buffer overflow
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=352482
A bug was found in the way metmail processes boundaries in mail
messages. This issue is a pretty standard heap based buffer overflow.
The Debian bug has a reproducer and a patch.
This issue has been rated as Important since the elm mail reader uses
metamail to handle MIME messages.
Discussion:
Created attachment 124705
Reproducer that crashes on RHEL2.1
---
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on the solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug repo
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=352482http://secunia.com/advisories/18796http://secunia.com/advisories/18987http://secunia.com/advisories/19000http://secunia.com/advisories/19130http://secunia.com/advisories/19226http://secunia.com/advisories/19304http://securitytracker.com/id?1015654http://www.debian.org/security/2006/dsa-995http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/glsa-200603-16.xmlhttp://www.novell.com/linux/security/advisories/2006_05_sr.htmlhttp://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2006-0217.htmlhttp://www.securityfocus.com/bid/16611http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2006/0565http://wwwnew.mandriva.com/security/advisories?name=MDKSA-2006:047https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/24702http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=352482http://secunia.com/advisories/18796http://secunia.com/advisories/18987http://secunia.com/advisories/19000http://secunia.com/advisories/19130http://secunia.com/advisories/19226http://secunia.com/advisories/19304http://securitytracker.com/id?1015654http://www.debian.org/security/2006/dsa-995http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/glsa-200603-16.xmlhttp://www.novell.com/linux/security/advisories/2006_05_sr.htmlhttp://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2006-0217.htmlhttp://www.securityfocus.com/bid/16611http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2006/0565http://wwwnew.mandriva.com/security/advisories?name=MDKSA-2006:047https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/24702
2006-02-15
Published