CVE-2015-9276
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 · uneditedSmarterTools SmarterMail before 13.3.5535 was vulnerable to stored XSS by bypassing the anti-XSS mechanisms. It was possible to run JavaScript code when a victim user opens or replies to the attacker's email, which contained a malicious payload. Therefore, users' passwords could be reset by using an XSS attack, as the password reset page did not need the current password.
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 confidenceSmarterMail before version 13.3.5535 contained a stored XSS vulnerability that bypassed existing anti-XSS filters. Attackers could embed malicious JavaScript in emails, which would execute when recipients opened or replied to the crafted message, enabling attackers to reset user passwords without authentication.
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< 13.3.5535CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Verify SmarterMail installationCheck if SmarterMail is installed on the system by looking for the SmarterMail installation directory (typically C:\Program Files\SmarterTools\SmarterMail or /opt/smartermail) or check Windows Services for 'SmarterMail' service.Affected if SmarterMail software is found on the system
-
Determine installed SmarterMail versionOpen the SmarterMail web interface and navigate to Help > About, or check the version info in the Windows Services list, or inspect the SmarterMail.Service.exe file properties in the installation folder.Affected if Unable to determine version or version displayed is below 13.3.5535
-
Confirm version is vulnerableCompare the identified version number to the affected range: any version lower than 13.3.5535 is vulnerable.Affected if Installed version is less than 13.3.5535
-
Check if webmail is accessibleAttempt to access the SmarterMail webmail login page (typically at port 9998 or 17001 by default, e.g., http://localhost:9998) to confirm the web interface is enabled and reachable.Affected if Webmail interface is accessible and SmarterMail version is below 13.3.5535
The environment is affected if SmarterMail is installed with a version number lower than 13.3.5535 and the webmail interface is accessible.
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 data13.3.5535
Upgrade SmarterMail to version 13.3.5535 or later to patch the XSS vulnerability. After upgrading, verify that the password reset functionality properly requires authentication.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-9276 — 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-2015-9276 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