CVE-2020-35741
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 · uneditedHGiga MailSherlock does not validate user parameters on multiple login pages. Attackers can use the vulnerability to inject JavaScript syntax for XSS attacks.
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 confidenceHGiga MailSherlock contains a reflected XSS vulnerability where multiple login pages fail to validate user-supplied parameters before rendering them in the page output. Attackers can inject malicious JavaScript syntax through these unvalidated parameters to execute client-side code in the context of other users' sessions.
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< 4.5-133< 4.5-120< 4.5-133< 4.5-120CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Identify product name and versionAccess the HGiga MailSherlock admin console or check system documentation to locate the installed product name (Msr45 or Ssr45), component type (Antispam or User), and exact version number.Affected if The installed version falls below 4.5-133 for Antispam components or below 4.5-120 for User components.
-
Confirm login page accessibilityNavigate to the login pages of the MailSherlock web interface. Note the URL and parameters used in the request (typically found in the query string or form data).Affected if Login pages are accessible and accept user-supplied parameters without validation.
-
Test for reflected parameter injectionSubmit a test payload such as a benign script tag or alert call (for example, <script>alert(1)</script>) in login page parameters (e.g., username, redirect URL, or other query parameters). Observe whether the payload is reflected unmodified in the response page.Affected if The submitted parameter value is rendered in the HTML response without proper encoding or sanitization, indicating the XSS vulnerability is present.
-
Inspect HTTP response headersReview the HTTP response headers from login pages to check for security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-XSS-Protection that may mitigate XSS.Affected if Security headers are missing or misconfigured, and parameter reflection occurs unchecked.
You are affected if your installed Hgiga MailSherlock version is below 4.5-133 (Antispam) or below 4.5-120 (User) AND the login page reflects unvalidated user parameters in the response.
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 data4.5-1204.5-133
Implement proper input validation and output encoding on all user-controllable parameters across login pages. Use context-appropriate sanitization (HTML encoding, URL encoding) based on where the parameter is rendered.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-35741 — 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-2020-35741 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