CVE-2021-43574
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 · uneditedWebAdmin Control Panel in Atmail 6.5.0 (a version released in 2012) allows XSS via the format parameter to the default URI. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer
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 confidenceCross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Atmail WebAdmin Control Panel 6.5.0 allows injection of malicious scripts through the format parameter in the default URI. This is a reflected XSS vulnerability requiring user interaction to execute malicious scripts in victim browsers.
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= 6.5.0CVSS 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.
-
Confirm Atmail WebAdmin is installedLocate the Atmail installation directory or check for the WebAdmin Control Panel by accessing the login page (typically at /webadmin or /atmail on the server). Look for Atmail-specific files in the web root directory.Affected if The Atmail WebAdmin Control Panel application is present on the system.
-
Identify the Atmail versionCheck the version number of the Atmail installation. This is typically found in a version file, about page within the admin panel, or in the software release notes/documentation. Compare your installed version against 6.5.0.Affected if The installed version is exactly 6.5.0 (this is the only affected version per the CVE).
-
Verify WebAdmin interface accessibilityDetermine if the WebAdmin Control Panel is network-accessible by checking if the default URI endpoint accepts requests. The vulnerable parameter is 'format' in the default URI path.Affected if The WebAdmin interface is accessible and the default URI with the format parameter can be reached.
-
Test for reflected parameterInspect the application's behavior when the format parameter is included in the default URI request. A simple test would be to send a request with a benign value in the format parameter and observe if it reflects in the response.Affected if The format parameter is accepted and its value is reflected in the server response without sanitization.
You are affected if Atmail WebAdmin Control Panel version 6.5.0 is installed and the WebAdmin interface is accessible with the vulnerable format parameter in the default URI.
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 dataSince Atmail 6.5.0 is no longer supported, upgrade to a currently supported version if available. If upgrading is not feasible, implement Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules to filter XSS attack patterns in the format parameter, or manually patch the code to implement proper input validation and output encoding.
- 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-2021-43574 — 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-2021-43574 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