CVE-2005-1348
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in HTTPMail in MailEnable Enterprise 1.04 and earlier and Professional 1.54 and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a long HTTP Authorization 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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in MailEnable's HTTPMail component allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by sending an overly long HTTP Authorization header. The flaw affects Enterprise versions 1.04 and earlier and Professional versions 1.54 and earlier.
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<= 1.04<= 1.54CVSS 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
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 MailEnable installationCheck for MailEnable installation directory, typically at C:\Program Files\MailEnable or look for MailEnable services in Windows Services (services.msc)Affected if MailEnable server software is installed on the system
-
Determine MailEnable versionOpen Windows Services (services.msc), locate the MailEnable service, right-click and select Properties to view the version, or check the version in Add/Remove ProgramsAffected if The installed version is MailEnable Enterprise version 1.04 or earlier, OR MailEnable Professional version 1.54 or earlier
-
Verify HTTPMail service is enabledCheck if the HTTPMail service is running: open services.msc and look for 'MailEnable HTTPMail' service, or check the MEAdmin utility for HTTPMail service statusAffected if The HTTPMail component/service is installed and running on the server
-
Check network exposure of HTTPMailReview firewall rules and network configuration to determine if port 8080 (default HTTPMail port) or the HTTPMail service is accessible from untrusted networks or the internetAffected if The HTTPMail service is exposed to untrusted or public networks without access controls
A system is affected if it runs MailEnable Enterprise <= 1.04 or Professional <= 1.54 with the HTTPMail component enabled and accessible to network attackers.
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 patched versions of MailEnable Enterprise/Professional beyond the affected versions, or implement network-level access controls to restrict HTTPMail service exposure to untrusted networks.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-1348 — 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-2005-1348 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