CVE-2026-33740
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 · uneditedEspoCRM is an open source customer relationship management application. In versions 9.3.3 and below, the POST /api/v1/Email/importEml endpoint contains an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability where the attacker-supplied fileId parameter is used to fetch any attachment directly from the repository without verifying that the current user has authorization to access it. Any authenticated user with Email:create and Import permissions can exploit this to read another user's .eml attachment contents by importing them as a new email into the attacker's mailbox, while the original victim attachment record is deleted as a side effect of the import flow. This is inconsistent with the standard attachment download path, which enforces ACL checks before returning file data, and is practically exploitable because attachment IDs are commonly exposed in normal UI and API workflows such as stream payloads and download links. This issue is fixed in version 9.3.4.
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 analysisThe application uses a user-supplied identifier to look up a record without checking that the requester actually owns it, so changing the identifier in a request returns someone else's data. This is the classic insecure-direct-object-reference — the change-the-ID-in-the-URL bug. Remediation is authorizing every object access against the acting user, not merely confirming they are logged in.
General guidance for the authorization bypass (idor) class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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< 9.3.4CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
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 · scoped9.3.4
9.3.4
- 1. Back up your EspoCRM instance and database before performing any upgrade
- 2. Download EspoCRM version 9.3.4 from the official GitHub releases page (https://github.com/espocrm/espocrm/releases) or your vendor's download portal
- 3. Follow the standard EspoCRM upgrade procedure: upload the new application files, then run the upgrade script or access /upgrade in your browser
- 4. Verify the upgrade was successful by logging into the administration panel and confirming the version displays as 9.3.4
- 5. Verify the vulnerability is patched by confirming that the /api/v1/Email/importEml endpoint now performs ACL validation before allowing access to attachments via the fileId parameter
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-33740 — 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-2026-33740 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