CVE-2026-126611

HIGHPre-NVD 7.07.0
EchelonGraph scoreHIGH confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 7.0 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-11-11. A secondary CVSS source baseline 7.0; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, a secondary CVSS source

Also known asEUVD-2026-123323 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-pm2h-xjj9-fw84 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.0EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: <0.1%CVSS: 7.0Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

Upgrade to hMailServer 6.3.8, which reads Server= as MariaDB Connector/C does and refuses TlsMode=verify-full with no TlsCaFile before connecting, with HM7535 in the error log, on a connection the client treats as local… (from the CVE record's solution, GitLab Inc.) — apply it.

Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.3.4 through 6.3.7, with a MySQL or MariaDB database, TlsMode=verify-full and no TlsCaFile, does not verify the database server's certificate's issuer or name when the connection is one that MariaDB Connector/C treats as local - Server= set to 127.0.0.1, ::1 or localhost (on Linux a Unix socket), to . on Windows (a named pipe), or to a comma-separated list of servers that holds such an element - which allows a local attacker who can stand in for the database server, for example by listening on its port while it is stopped or restarting, to receive the database sign-in, the password included, and to read and modify the traffic between hMailServer and its database. hMailServer applied verify-full by turning the client's certificate verification on without a CA file, but MariaDB Connector/C 3.4.1 and later, on a connection they treat as local and with no CA file, accept any certificate within its validity period that is self-signed or sent with its own root, for any name (Connector/C 3.4.2 to 3.4.10 also one whose issuer they cannot find), so the client accepted the certificate an impostor made, asked no proof of the password and allowed a switch to an authentication method that sends the password unhashed, while hmailserver --check-database said the certificate had been checked against the system's trust store and the application log that it had been checked. The Windows builds bundle Connector/C 3.4.9 (6.3.4 to 6.3.6) and 3.4.11 (6.3.7); on Linux the distribution's client is used, and Connector/C 3.3 and 3.4.0 and Oracle's MySQL client are not affected. The configuration is not the default: TlsMode defaults to prefer, which checks no certificate.

CVSS v3
7.0
EG Score
7.0HIGHhigh confidence
EG Risk
32
EG Risk 32/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity70% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.0 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation<0.1% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: Upgrade to hMailServer 6.3.8, which reads Server= as MariaDB Connector/C does and refuses TlsMode=verify-full with no TlsCaFile before connecting, with HM7535 in the error log, on a connection the client treats as local… (from the CVE record's solution, GitLab Inc.). Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
<0.1%
EPSS %ILE
below the 1st
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.0 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
<0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

Upgrade to hMailServer 6.3.8, which reads Server= as MariaDB Connector/C does and refuses TlsMode=verify-full with no TlsCaFile before connecting, with HM7535 in the error log, on a connection the client treats as local… (from the CVE record's solution, GitLab Inc.). Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

November 11, 2026

Last Modified

November 12, 2026

Advisory Details (2)

Auto-updated Nov 12, 2026
Fix named in the CVE record's solution (GitLab Inc.).
Web page

Database TLS: verify-full on MySQL and MariaDB with no TlsCaFile checked neither the issuer nor the name of the database server's certificate on a connection to this machine (127.0.0.1, ::1, localhost, socket or pipe) while saying it had (6.3.4 to 6.3.7) (#113) · Issues · hmailserver / hMailServer · GitLab

https://gitlab.com/hmailserver/hmailserver/-/work_items/113
Web page

hMailServer 6.3.8 · hmailserver / hMailServer · GitLab

https://gitlab.com/hmailserver/hmailserver/-/releases/v6.3.8

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-126611(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 6× in last 7d / 6× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-13 16:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS <0.1% · below the 1st percentile
  2. 2026-11-12 19:08 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  3. 2026-11-12 19:08 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pm2h-xjj9-fw84 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.0
  4. 2026-11-11 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS <0.1% · below the 1st percentile
  5. 2026-11-11 09:46 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  6. 2026-11-11 09:46 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pm2h-xjj9-fw84 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.0
  7. 2026-11-11 09:28 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  8. 2026-11-11 09:00 UTCENISA EUVD ID recordedEUVD-2026-123323 · Source: ENISA EUVD
  9. 2026-11-11 08:39 UTCEchelonGraph re-scoredFirst assessed: 7.0 HIGH
  10. 2026-11-11 08:39 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-126611?
CVE-2026-126611 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on November 11, 2026. Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.3.4 through 6.3.7, with a MySQL or MariaDB database, TlsMode=verify-full and no TlsCaFile, does not verify the database server's certificate's issuer or name when the connection is one that MariaDB Connector/C treats as local - Server= set to 127.0.0.1, ::1 or…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-126611 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-126611 was published on November 11, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of November 12, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-126611 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-126611 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a <0.1% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (below the 1st percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-126611?
CVE-2026-126611 has a CVSS base score of 7.0 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-126611?
The CVE record's solution for CVE-2026-126611, written by its CNA GitLab Inc., names the fix: "Upgrade to hMailServer 6.3.8, which reads Server= as MariaDB Connector/C does and refuses TlsMode=verify-full with no TlsCaFile before connecting, with HM7535 in the error log, on a connection the client treats as local…" The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-126611 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-126611

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-126611?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.