CVE-2018-25223
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 · uneditedCrashmail 1.6 contains a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability that allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by sending malicious input to the application. Attackers can craft payloads with ROP chains to achieve code execution in the application context, with failed attempts potentially causing denial of service.
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 confidenceCrashmail 1.6 contains a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability that allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by sending malicious input. The vulnerability can be exploited with ROP chains to achieve code execution, and failed exploitation attempts may result in denial of service.
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<= 1.6CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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.
-
Identify Crashmail installationLocate the Crashmail binary or service on the system. Common locations may include /usr/local/bin/, /usr/sbin/, or within FidoNet-related directories. Run 'which crashmail' or search for 'crashmail' in the process list.Affected if The software is present and no patched version information can be verified.
-
Determine installed Crashmail versionRun 'crashmail --version' or 'crashmail -v' to retrieve the version number. If the binary does not support version flags, check any package manager entry (dpkg -l, rpm -qi) or the binary's metadata.Affected if The reported version is 1.6 or lower.
-
Verify network exposureCheck if Crashmail is listening on any network ports or configured to receive input from external sources. Review configuration files (crashmail.cfg or similar) for network bindings, and use 'netstat -anp' or 'ss -anp' to identify listening ports associated with crashmail.Affected if Crashmail is bound to a network interface and accepts remote input.
-
Review crash logs and audit trailsExamine system logs (/var/log/messages, /var/log/syslog) and any application-specific logs for Crashmail-related crash events or segfaults, especially around the time of external network activity.Affected if Unexpected crashes or segfaults of the Crashmail process are recorded.
A system is affected if Crashmail II version 1.6 or lower is installed and the software is exposed to network input or untrusted data sources.
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 dataApply available patches or update to a patched version of Crashmail. If no patch exists, implement input validation and consider network-level controls to limit exposure until the vulnerability can be properly fixed.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-25223 — 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-2018-25223 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