CVE-2023-24839
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’s specific function has insufficient filtering for user input. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability to inject JavaScript, conducting a reflected XSS attack.
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 in a specific function due to insufficient filtering of user input. An unauthenticated remote attacker can inject malicious JavaScript through user-controlled parameters that get reflected in the HTTP response without proper sanitization.
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= 4.5CVSS 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 HGiga MailSherlock is installedLocate the MailSherlock installation directory or check running services. Common paths may include /opt/mailsherlock, C:\Program Files\HGiga\MailSherlock, or check for mailsherlock processes running on the system.Affected if The product HGiga Oaklouds Mailsherlock is present on the system
-
Identify installed versionCheck the version of MailSherlock installed. This is typically found in the product's about screen, version file, or installer records. Common locations: look for version.info, about.php, or check the application properties in the installation directory.Affected if The installed version is exactly 4.5
-
Identify accessible web interfaceDetermine if the MailSherlock web interface is exposed and accessible. Check if port 80, 443, or custom ports used by MailSherlock are listening and reachable.Affected if The web interface is accessible from network locations where untrusted users could submit requests
-
Test for reflected XSS in user-controlled parametersSince the specific vulnerable function is not identified in the CVE, manually review HTTP requests to the application. Submit requests with script tags in various query parameters and examine if the input is reflected unsanitized in the response. Common XSS vectors: search fields, form submissions, URL parameters.Affected if User-supplied input is reflected in HTTP responses without proper encoding or sanitization
The environment is affected only if HGiga Oaklouds Mailsherlock version 4.5 is installed AND the web interface is accessible AND user input gets reflected unsanitized in HTTP responses.
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 dataImplement strict input validation and context-aware output encoding for all user-supplied data in the affected function; apply allowlist validation and use established sanitization libraries to prevent script execution.
- 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-2023-24839 — 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-2023-24839 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