CVE-2018-11616
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 · uneditedThis vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on vulnerable installations of Tencent Foxmail 7.2.9.115. User interaction is required to exploit this vulnerability in that the target must visit a malicious page or open a malicious file. The specific flaw exists within the processing of URI handlers. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code under the context of the current process. Was ZDI-CAN-5543.
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 confidenceTencent Foxmail 7.2.9.115 contains a vulnerability in its URI handler processing where user-supplied strings are not properly validated before being used in a system call, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary code through malicious pages or files.
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= 7.2.9.115CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Check if Tencent Foxmail is installedLook for Foxmail installation in common locations: C:\Program Files\Tencent\Foxmail\ or C:\Program Files (x86)\Tencent\Foxmail\. On Linux/Mac check for Wine or virtualized Windows installations running Foxmail.Affected if Foxmail is found installed on the system
-
Determine the installed Foxmail versionOpen Foxmail, then go to Menu > Help > About, or right-click the Foxmail icon and select 'About'. Alternatively, check the version in the executable file properties (foxmail.exe right-click > Properties > Details).Affected if The version shown is exactly 7.2.9.115
-
Verify the exact build number matches CVEConfirm the full version string reads '7.2.9.115' with no additional patch levels. Some displays may show minor sub-versions (e.g., 7.2.9.115.123) - compare the full string.Affected if The version is precisely 7.2.9.115 (no additional build suffixes)
-
Check URI handler registration statusOn Windows, run 'reg query HKLM\SOFTWARE\Classes\foxmail\shell\open\command' or 'reg query HKCU\SOFTWARE\Classes\foxmail' to see if the Foxmail URI handler (foxmail://) is registered in the system.Affected if The Foxmail URI handler is registered and accessible to the user account
The system is affected if Tencent Foxmail version 7.2.9.115 is installed and the URI handler functionality is present and 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 dataUpdate Tencent Foxmail to the latest version with the vendor patch, or disable/trust-block the URI handler functionality until patching is feasible.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-11616 — 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-2018-11616 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