CVE-2008-2859
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 · uneditedUnspecified vulnerability in the IMAP service in NetWin SurgeMail before 3.9g2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon crash) via unknown vectors related to an "imap command."
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 · moderate confidenceRemote denial of service vulnerability in NetWin SurgeMail IMAP service versions before 3.9g2 allows remote attackers to crash the IMAP daemon via crafted imap commands. The exact attack vector is not specified in the advisory.
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<= 3.9g= 3.8a= 3.8b= 3.8d= 3.8f= 3.8f2= 3.8f3= 3.8i= 3.8i2= 3.8i3= 3.8k= 3.8k2CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Verify SurgeMail installationCheck if NetWin SurgeMail is installed on the system by looking for the surgemail process, executable, or service.Affected if SurgeMail is not installed on the system.
-
Determine installed SurgeMail versionRun the command to display the SurgeMail version, typically by executing the SurgeMail binary with a version flag (e.g., ./surgemail -v) or checking the product documentation for the version display command.Affected if The installed version matches one of the affected versions: 3.8a, 3.8b, 3.8d, 3.8f, 3.8f2, 3.8f3, 3.8i, 3.8i2, 3.8i3, 3.8k, 3.8k2, or any version 3.9g or lower.
-
Confirm IMAP service is enabledCheck the SurgeMail configuration file (surgemail.ini) or running configuration for the IMAP service settings, specifically looking for IMAP listener ports (default 143 or 993 for IMAPS) and whether IMAP is actively enabled.Affected if The IMAP service is enabled and listening for connections.
The system is affected if NetWin SurgeMail is running with IMAP enabled and the installed version is 3.8a, 3.8b, 3.8d, 3.8f, 3.8f2, 3.8f3, 3.8i, 3.8i2, 3.8i3, 3.8k, 3.8k2, or any version 3.9g or lower.
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 SurgeMail version 3.9g2 or later. If immediate upgrade is not possible, consider restricting IMAP service access to trusted networks or implementing rate limiting on IMAP connections as a temporary mitigation.
- 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-2008-2859 — 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-2008-2859 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