CVE-2005-1105
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 · uneditedDirectory traversal vulnerability in the MimeBodyPart.getFileName method in JavaMail 1.3.2 allows remote attackers to write arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the filename in the Content-Disposition header.
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 confidenceThe MimeBodyPart.getFileName method in JavaMail 1.3.2 fails to properly sanitize filenames extracted from the Content-Disposition header, allowing directory traversal sequences ('../') to be used to write files to arbitrary locations on the filesystem.
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= 1.3.2CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/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.
-
Identify JavaMail installation and versionSearch for javamail JAR files (mail.jar, javax.mail.jar, or activiation.jar) in the application's classpath, lib directories, or dependency manifests (pom.xml, build.gradle). Check the JAR file metadata or the product documentation for the exact version number.Affected if The installed JavaMail version is exactly 1.3.2 (no patch applied)
-
Locate MimeBodyPart classSearch for the MimeBodyPart.class or its source file in the application or check the JavaMail library included in the runtime classpath. The vulnerable method is getFileName() in the javax.mail.internet.MimeBodyPart package.Affected if The application uses the javax.mail.internet.MimeBodyPart class from JavaMail 1.3.2 and calls the getFileName() method
-
Check for Content-Disposition header processingReview code that handles email attachments or MIME messages. Look for usage of MimeBodyPart.getFileName() or getDisposition() followed by filename extraction. This typically occurs in email attachment handling or file download functionality.Affected if The application processes email messages with Content-Disposition headers containing filename parameters, where getFileName() is invoked to extract the filename
-
Verify if extracted filenames are used for file writesAudit the code flow after getFileName() is called. Determine whether the returned filename is passed directly to FileOutputStream, FileWriter, or similar file creation APIs without sanitization.Affected if The filename returned by getFileName() is used in file write operations (FileOutputStream, File, Paths.get, etc.) without validation of directory traversal sequences
The environment is affected if JavaMail version 1.3.2 is in use AND MimeBodyPart.getFileName() is called to extract filenames from Content-Disposition headers that are subsequently used in file write operations without sanitization of ../ sequences.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of JavaMail (1.4 or later) that includes proper filename sanitization to prevent directory traversal attacks.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-1105 — 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-2005-1105 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