MailmanApplication · Gnu

CVE-2005-3573

MEDIUM · 5.0 CVSS v2.0 Published 2005-11-16

Mitigation only

No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.

See remediation →

59/100

Remediation priority · Elevated

Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

Official description

NVD · unedited

Scrubber.py in Mailman 2.1.5-8 does not properly handle UTF8 character encodings in filenames of e-mail attachments, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash).

Technical summary

dbcve analysis · high confidence

Scrubber.py in Mailman versions 2.1.5 through 2.1.8 fails to properly handle UTF8 character encodings in filenames of email attachments. When malformed or specific UTF8 sequences are encountered in attachment filenames, the application crashes due to improper encoding handling, leading to denial of service.

MitigationUpgrade to a patched version of Mailman 2.1.x that properly handles UTF8 filename encodings, or apply the vendor-provided patch to Scrubber.py to add proper UTF8 encoding/decoding error handling.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

Affected products & versions

NVD · CPE data

MailmanApplication

Affected:= 2.0= 2.0.1= 2.0.2= 2.0.3= 2.0.4= 2.0.5= 2.0.6= 2.0.7= 2.0.8= 2.0.9= 2.0.10= 2.0.11

CVSS breakdown

From the vector

Attack vector: Network
Complexity: Low
Authentication: None
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: Partial

AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P

Am I affected?

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

Verify Mailman installation and version

Run 'mailman --version' or check the version file in your Mailman installation directory (typically /var/lib/mailman or /usr/lib/mailman)

Affected if The installed version matches 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.1.7, or 2.1.8, or any 2.0.x version through 2.0.11
Locate Scrubber.py in the Mailman installation

Find the Scrubber.py file, typically located in the mailman/Mailman/Handlers directory within your Mailman installation path

Affected if Scrubber.py exists in the expected location and has not been patched for UTF8 handling
Check Scrubber.py for UTF8 error handling code

Inspect the Scrubber.py file and search for UTF8 encoding/decoding error handling (look for code handling UnicodeDecodeError or UnicodeEncodeError, or references to 'utf-8' or 'UTF-8' in try/except blocks)

Affected if The code lacks proper UTF8 error handling for attachment filenames - the vulnerability exists if malformed UTF8 in filenames would cause an unhandled exception
Verify if email attachment processing is enabled

Check Mailman configuration to confirm that the Scrubber handler is active for incoming邮件 - this is typically enabled by default in Mailman installations

Affected if Mailman is configured to process email attachments through Scrubber.py (the default configuration)

You are affected if your Mailman version is 2.1.5 through 2.1.8 (or 2.0.x through 2.0.11) and the Scrubber.py file lacks proper UTF8 encoding error handling for attachment filenames.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Remediation

From vendor data

Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime

Mitigation

Upgrade to a patched version of Mailman 2.1.x that properly handles UTF8 filename encodings, or apply the vendor-provided patch to Scrubber.py to add proper UTF8 encoding/decoding error handling.

Fix this in Mailman Scoped from the published advisory

Consultation1.0 h
Implementation2.0 h
Testing2.0 h
Review / QA1.0 h

6.0 hours of engineering $1,040

Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally

dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-3573 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2005-3573 in production — separate from our analysis above.

Notes0 Guidelines

Know something about CVE-2005-3573?

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here

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

At a glance

A fix existsA vendor remedy is published

Severity 5.0 Medium

Exploit likelihood EPSS, next 30 days 2.7%

Affects: Mailman

Remediation

Need this fixed?

Fix this in Mailman 6 hrs · Low

Typical engagement from $1,040

Get a fix See the full breakdown ↓

We specialise in CVE remediation. Send your environment and we’ll scope CVE-2005-3573 and return a fixed quote.

You’ll deal with our team directly and deploy the reviewed fix to staging first — never straight to production.

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.

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.

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.

CVSS 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.

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.

Check your environment

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.

Scan for this in your stack

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Practitioner notes

No notes yet

Official description

Technical summary

Affected products & versions

CVSS breakdown

Am I affected?

Remediation

References