CVE-2024-45516
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) 9.0.0 before Patch 43, 10.0.x before 10.0.12, 10.1.x before 10.1.4, and 8.8.15 before Patch 47. A Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Zimbra Classic UI allows attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript within the user's session, potentially leading to unauthorized access to sensitive information. This issue arises from insufficient sanitization of HTML content, including malformed <img> tags with embedded JavaScript. The vulnerability is triggered when a user views a specially crafted email in the Classic UI, requiring no additional user interaction.
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 · high confidenceA stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in Zimbra Collaboration's Classic UI email client. Attackers can embed malicious JavaScript within malformed HTML, specifically <img> tags, in specially crafted emails. When recipients view these emails, the embedded JavaScript executes within their authenticated session, enabling potential session hijacking and unauthorized access to sensitive information.
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>= 10.0.0, < 10.0.12>= 10.1.0, < 10.1.4= 8.8.15= 9.0.0CVSS 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.
-
Locate Zimbra installation directoryCheck common paths such as /opt/zimbra or run: ls -la /opt/ | grep zimbra. Also check /usr/local/zimbra if installed in alternate locations.Affected if Zimbra is not installed on this system (not applicable)
-
Determine installed Zimbra versionRun: /opt/zimbra/bin/zmcontrol -v OR /opt/zimbra zmbackup -v OR check /opt/zimbra/.version. Extract the full version number (e.g., 10.0.11, 8.8.15, 9.0.0).Affected if Unable to determine version from Zimbra installation
-
Verify Classic UI is enabledCheck Zimbra web interface configuration: examine /opt/zimbra/conf/nginx.conf or /opt/zimbra/conf/nginx.conf.in for classic-webmail or old-webmail endpoints. Alternatively, check /opt/zimbra/jetty/etc/webdefault.xml for Classic UI servlet mappings.Affected if Classic UI is explicitly disabled in Zimbra configuration
-
Compare version against affected rangesUsing the version from step 2, verify if it falls within: 10.0.0 to <10.0.12, 10.1.0 to <10.1.4, exactly 8.8.15, or exactly 9.0.0. Example: 10.0.11 is affected, 10.0.12 is not.Affected if Installed version matches: 10.0.0 <= version < 10.0.12 OR 10.1.0 <= version < 10.1.4 OR version equals 8.8.15 OR version equals 9.0.0
System is affected if Classic UI is enabled AND the installed Zimbra version falls within the affected ranges listed above.
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.
dbcve · scoped10.0.1210.1.4
Apply the appropriate vendor patch for your Zimbra version: Patch 43 for 9.0.0, Patch 47 for 8.8.15, 10.0.12 for 10.0.x, or 10.1.4 for 10.1.x. These patches address the insufficient HTML sanitization in the Classic UI.
ZCS 10.0.12+ (for 10.0.x branch), ZCS 10.1.4+ (for 10.1.x branch), Patch 43+ (for 9.0.0), Patch 47+ (for 8.8.15)
- 1. Identify the currently installed Zimbra Collaboration Suite version using 'zmcontrol -v' or checking the Zimbra admin console
- 2. For ZCS 10.0.x versions (10.0.0 - 10.0.11): Upgrade to ZCS 10.0.12 or later
- 3. For ZCS 10.1.x versions (10.1.0 - 10.1.3): Upgrade to ZCS 10.1.4 or later
- 4. For ZCS 9.0.0: Apply Patch 43 or later
- 5. For ZCS 8.8.15: Apply Patch 47 or later
- 6. After upgrade/patching, verify the fix by confirming the ZCS version or patch level
- 7. Test the Classic UI with a test email to confirm the XSS vulnerability is remediated
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing5.0 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 $3,312.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-45516 — 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-2024-45516 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