CVE-2007-1137
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 · uneditedputmail.py in Putmail before 1.4 does not detect when a user attempts to use TLS with a server that does not support it, which causes putmail.py to send the username and password in plaintext while the user believes encryption is in use, and allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information.
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 confidenceIn putmail.py before version 1.4, the application fails to properly detect whether the target SMTP server supports TLS encryption. When connecting to a server that does not advertise TLS support, the application proceeds to send authentication credentials (username and password) in plaintext while the user interface indicates encryption is in use, allowing remote attackers on the network to intercept these credentials.
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= .8= .9= .10= .11= .12= 1.0= 1.1= 1.2= 1.3CVSS 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.
-
Locate putmail.py installationFind the putmail.py file on your system - common locations include the current working directory, /usr/local/bin/, or a personal scripts folder. Open the file and look for a version string near the top of the script (often in a variable like __version__ or in comments).Affected if The version string shows 1.3 or earlier (.8, .9, .10, .11, .12, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3).
-
Identify exact version numberRead the version identifier from the putmail.py script header or help output (run 'python putmail.py --version' or check the first 20 lines of the script).Affected if Version is 1.3 or any of .8, .9, .10, .11, .12, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2.
-
Verify TLS capability check behaviorExamine the source code for the SMTP connection logic - look for functions that handle STARTTLS or TLS initiation. Check whether the code contains a check that verifies the server advertises TLS support before proceeding with authentication.Affected if The code lacks a check that confirms the server supports TLS before sending username and password, or the code blindly attempts TLS without validating server capability.
You are affected if your putmail.py version is 1.3 or earlier (versions .8 through 1.3), as these versions fail to verify TLS support before sending credentials in plaintext.
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 putmail to version 1.4 or later which properly verifies TLS server capability before sending any authentication data. As a temporary workaround, manually verify that your mail server supports TLS before use and consider changing exposed credentials.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-1137 — 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-2007-1137 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