CVE-2002-2344
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedEnsim WEBppliance 3.0 and 3.1 allows remote attackers to read mail intended for other users by defining an alias that is the target's email address.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceEnsim WEBppliance 3.0 and 3.1 contains a validation flaw in its email alias management system that allows a remote attacker to create an alias matching another user's email address, thereby intercepting mail intended for the legitimate user.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 3.0= 3.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm Ensim WEBppliance is installedLocate the Ensim WEBppliance installation directory or check system inventory for presence of the software packageAffected if The software is not present on the system, the vulnerability does not apply
-
Verify the installed version is 3.0 or 3.1Check the software version using 'rpm -q' for RPM-based systems, or look for version files in the installation directory, or check the WEBppliance admin interface for version informationAffected if The installed version is 3.0 or 3.1, the system falls within the affected version range
-
Confirm the email alias management feature is enabledAccess the WEBppliance control panel and navigate to the email management section, or check configuration files for email alias handling functionalityAffected if The email alias management feature is disabled or not configured, the specific flaw may not be exploitable
-
Test for alias conflict vulnerabilityUsing an authorized admin account, attempt to create an email alias that exactly matches an existing user's primary email address through the alias management interface or APIAffected if The system allows creation of an alias that duplicates an existing user's email address, the validation flaw is present
The environment is affected if Ensim WEBppliance version 3.0 or 3.1 is installed with the email alias management feature enabled and the system permits creating aliases that conflict with existing user email addresses.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement validation checks during alias creation to ensure the requested alias does not conflict with existing user email addresses or aliases in the system.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-2344 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2002-2344 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data