CVE-2026-25067
Smartertools Smartermail ≤ 100.0.9518
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2026-25067 is a medium-severity Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference (CWE-706) vulnerability in Smartertools Smartermail. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Path Interception (T1034); ranked at the 21th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-4974
Vulnerability Data
SmarterTools SmarterMail versions prior to build 9518 contain an unauthenticated path coercion vulnerability in the background-of-the-day preview endpoint. The application base64-decodes attacker-supplied input and uses it as a filesystem path without validation. On Windows systems, this allows UNC paths to…
more
be resolved, causing the SmarterMail service to initiate outbound SMB authentication attempts to attacker-controlled hosts. This can be abused for credential coercion, NTLM relay attacks, and unauthorized network authentication.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Access enforcement applies authorization checks to the resolved resource, blocking access outside the intended sphere.
Information flow enforcement can constrain flows that result from an incorrectly resolved name or reference.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure-development practices directly prevent incorrect name/reference resolution bugs during coding.
Enforced authorization boundaries limit damage from an incorrectly resolved reference.
Logical segmentation and access controls reduce the chance an out-of-sphere resolution succeeds.
Hardened configuration baselines can constrain allowable name-to-resource mappings.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect incorrect name or reference resolution through fuzzing and negative test cases.
Network segmentation and routing policies reduce the chance that a mis-resolved name leads to an unintended external resource.
Segregated networks limit the blast radius when a name or reference resolves outside the intended control sphere.
Secure SDLC practices include design reviews that can catch incorrect name or reference handling before deployment.
Application security requirements can mandate validation of all external references and names used at runtime.
Secure architecture principles discourage reliance on ambient or globally-resolvable names without explicit scoping.