CVE-2020-35743
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 contains a SQL injection flaw. Attackers can inject and launch SQL commands in a URL parameter of specific cgi pages.
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 SQL injection vulnerability in specific CGI pages where user-supplied input in URL parameters is not properly sanitized before being used in database queries. Attackers can craft malicious SQL commands within these parameters to manipulate, extract, or destroy database content.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L
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 the installed HGiga MailSherlock product variant and versionLocate the product version through the administrative interface, system information files, or version display endpoint. Common methods include checking the help/about page, configuration files, or running the product's version command.Affected if The installed version falls below 4.5-133 for Antispam variants or below 4.5-120 for User variants.
-
Confirm the product variant typeDetermine whether the deployment uses Msr45 or Ssr45 architecture, and whether it includes Antispam or User components. This is typically visible in the product name, model number, or administrative console.Affected if The system runs any Hgiga Msr45 or Ssr45 Isherlock variant with a version lower than the thresholds listed.
-
Verify CGI page accessibilityIdentify whether the CGI interface is exposed to network users. Check web server configuration for CGI script mappings and determine if the specific CGI pages handling URL parameters are reachable from external or untrusted networks.Affected if The CGI interface is accessible without proper network segmentation or authentication, allowing URL parameter input to reach the vulnerable code paths.
-
Review web request handling for the affected parametersExamine the application's behavior when processing URL parameters in CGI requests. Determine if user-supplied input from URL parameters is being passed directly to database query execution without observable sanitization or parameterization.Affected if URL parameters are processed and used in database queries without evident input validation or prepared statement usage.
A system is affected if it runs Hgiga Msr45 or Ssr45 Isherlock Antispam version below 4.5-133 or User version below 4.5-120, and the CGI pages handling URL parameters are accessible for injection.
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 use parameterized queries (prepared statements) for all database interactions in the affected CGI pages to prevent SQL injection attacks.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-35743 — 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-2020-35743 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