CVE-2025-46611
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 · uneditedCross Site Scripting vulnerability in ARTEC EMA Mail v6.92 allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code via a crafted script.
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 ARTEC EMA Mail v6.92 allows remote attackers to inject and execute arbitrary JavaScript or script code via a crafted payload. The vulnerability enables execution of malicious scripts in the context of the victim's browser session, potentially leading to session hijacking, credential theft, or further payload delivery.
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= 6.92CVSS 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.
-
Verify Artec EMA Mail installationCheck for Artec EMA Mail application on the system - look for installation directory, running services, or check installed programs listAffected if Artec EMA Mail v6.92 is installed and running
-
Confirm exact version numberCheck the application version within EMA Mail or via system information (about dialog, version file, or installer details)Affected if Version is exactly 6.92 (only this specific version is affected)
-
Identify mail input interfaceLocate where user-supplied data enters the EMA Mail system - typically compose, search, or recipient fields in the web interface or clientAffected if The mail composition or search functionality is accessible to users
-
Test for reflected input reflectionSubmit a benign test payload (such as <script>alert(1)</script> or similar) in mail input fields and observe if it is rendered without sanitization in the responseAffected if User input is reflected in the response without proper encoding or sanitization
You are affected if Artec EMA Mail version 6.92 is running and user-supplied input in mail fields is reflected in the web interface without sanitization.
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 robust input validation and output encoding for all user-supplied data within the EMA Mail application. Apply context-appropriate sanitization and consider implementing Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to mitigate XSS exploitation.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46611 — 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-2025-46611 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