dbcve.org
AtmailApplication · Calacode

CVE-2008-3579

HIGH · 7.8 CVSS v2.0 Published 2008-08-10
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
87/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Calacode @Mail 5.41 on Linux does not require administrative authentication for build-plesk-upgrade.php, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information by creating and downloading a backup archive of the entire @Mail directory tree. NOTE: this can be leveraged for remote exploitation of CVE-2008-3395. NOTE: the provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely from third party 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 · moderate confidence

This is an authentication bypass vulnerability in Calacode @Mail 5.41 on Linux. The build-plesk-upgrade.php script does not require administrative authentication, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to create and download backup archives of the entire @Mail directory tree, exposing sensitive system information, configuration data, and potentially credentials.

MitigationImplement proper authentication/authorization checks on build-plesk-upgrade.php, or restrict access via web server configuration (IP allowlisting, .htaccess password protection), or remove the script if not needed. Consider upgrading to a patched version if available.

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
AtmailApplication
Affected:= 5.41

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.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Authentication
None
Confidentiality
Complete
Integrity
None
Availability
None

AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/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 checks

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

  1. Confirm Calacode Atmail version
    Locate the Atmail installation and check the version number. Common ways include: looking at version files in the installation directory, checking the admin interface for version information, or reviewing installation/package metadata. Compare your installed version to 5.41.
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 5.41 (Calacode Atmail 5.41)
  2. Locate the build-plesk-upgrade.php script
    Search the web-accessible directories of your Atmail installation for a file named 'build-plesk-upgrade.php'. Check common locations such as the root web directory, /admin/, /scripts/, or /utilities/ within the Atmail web path.
    Affected if The file build-plesk-upgrade.php exists in a web-accessible location
  3. Test script accessibility without authentication
    Attempt to access the build-plesk-upgrade.php script via HTTP/HTTPS from an unauthenticated browser session or using a tool like curl. For example: curl http://your-atmail-host/path/to/build-plesk-upgrade.php
    Affected if The script returns any response without requiring login credentials
  4. Verify backup creation capability
    If the script responds, examine whether it allows creation or downloading of backup archives. Look for parameters or actions that trigger backup generation (such as form submissions or specific URL parameters).
    Affected if The script allows creating or downloading backup archives without authentication

A user is affected if running Calacode Atmail version 5.41 with the build-plesk-upgrade.php script accessible in a web directory without authentication controls.

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

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement proper authentication/authorization checks on build-plesk-upgrade.php, or restrict access via web server configuration (IP allowlisting, .htaccess password protection), or remove the script if not needed. Consider upgrading to a patched version if available.

Fix this in Atmail Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation3.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
8.0 hours of engineering $1,420
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-3579 — 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 Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2008-3579 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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