CVE-2024-45518
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) 10.1.x before 10.1.1, 10.0.x before 10.0.9, 9.0.0 before Patch 41, and 8.8.15 before Patch 46. It allows authenticated users to exploit Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) due to improper input sanitization and misconfigured domain whitelisting. This issue permits unauthorized HTTP requests to be sent to internal services, which can lead to Remote Code Execution (RCE) by chaining Command Injection within the internal service. When combined with existing XSS vulnerabilities, this SSRF issue can further facilitate Remote Code Execution (RCE).
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 confidenceZimbra Collaboration suffers from an SSRF vulnerability allowing authenticated users to make unauthorized HTTP requests to internal services due to improper input sanitization and misconfigured domain whitelisting. This can be chained with command injection in internal services or combined with XSS vulnerabilities to achieve remote code execution.
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, < 10.0.9= 8.8.15= 9.0.0= 10.1.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Determine installed Zimbra Collaboration versionRun 'zmcontrol -v' or 'zmversion' command as the zimbra user to get the exact version numberAffected if Version is 10.0.0 through 10.0.8, 8.8.15, 9.0.0, or 10.1.0
-
Confirm the Zimbra web mail service is accessibleVerify the Zimbra web client (port 443 or 8080) is exposed and reachable from network paths that would allow an authenticated user to access itAffected if The web mail interface is accessible to users who would trigger the SSRF vector
-
Check for authenticated user access to mail componentsVerify that regular user accounts or test accounts can log into the Zimbra web interfaceAffected if Authenticated users exist in the system who could exploit the SSRF vulnerability
-
Inspect proxy and request forwarding configurationReview Zimbra configuration files for any proxy, servlet, or API endpoint configurations that handle outbound requests or URL parametersAffected if Misconfigured proxy settings or whitelisted domains that accept user-controlled URL input are present
You are affected if your Zimbra version matches one of the affected versions AND authenticated users can access the web interface to trigger the SSRF vector against internal services.
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 · scoped10.0.9
Upgrade Zimbra to version 10.1.1, 10.0.9, Patch 41 for 9.0.0, or Patch 46 for 8.8.15. Additionally, review and tighten domain whitelisting configurations and ensure internal services are not exposed to SSRF attacks.
Upgrade to ZCS 10.1.1+, 10.0.9+, or apply Patch 41+ for 9.0.0 and Patch 46+ for 8.8.15
- 1. Identify the currently installed Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) version using: zmcontrol -v
- 2. For ZCS 10.1.x versions: Upgrade to version 10.1.1 or later from the official Zimbra package repositories
- 3. For ZCS 10.0.x versions (>= 10.0.0, < 10.0.9): Upgrade to version 10.0.9 or later from the official Zimbra package repositories
- 4. For ZCS 9.0.0: Apply Patch 41 or later, or upgrade to a newer supported release
- 5. For ZCS 8.8.15: Apply Patch 46 or later, or upgrade to a newer supported release
- 6. After upgrade, verify the fix by confirming the version matches a patched release: zmcontrol -v
- 7. Review and restrict user permissions related to network request functionality to further mitigate SSRF risks
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-45518 — 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-2024-45518 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