CVE-2026-27444
Seppmail ≤ 15.0.1
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:H/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-2026-27444 is a high-severity Interpretation Conflict (CWE-436) vulnerability in Seppmail Seppmail. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 12th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-27444 is a vulnerability in SEPPmail Secure Email Gateway versions prior to 15.0.1, where the software incorrectly interprets email addresses in email headers. This misinterpretation creates a conflict with other mail infrastructure components, enabling attackers to fake the apparent source of an email or decrypt its contents. The issue, published on 2026-03-04, carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N) and maps to CWE-436 (Interpretation Conflict).
The vulnerability can be exploited by unauthenticated remote attackers over the network with low attack complexity and no user interaction required. Exploitation allows manipulation of email integrity, such as spoofing the sender's identity to bypass trust mechanisms or decrypting protected emails by leveraging the interpretation discrepancy between SEPPmail and downstream mail systems.
SEPPmail's advisory in the release notes for version 15.0 at https://downloads.seppmail.com/extrelnotes/150/ERN15.0.html#seppmail-vulnerability-disclosure addresses the vulnerability. Mitigation requires upgrading to SEPPmail Secure Email Gateway version 15.0.1 or later to correct the header interpretation logic.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-9380
Vulnerability Data
SEPPmail Secure Email Gateway before version 15.0.1 incorrectly interprets email addresses in the email headers, causing an interpretation conflict with other mail infrastructure that allows an attacker to fake the source of the email or decrypt it.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover cases where two products interpret the same inputs or state transitions differently.
Strict, consistently applied input validation reduces the chance that one product will accept data the other product rejects or interprets differently.
Applying security engineering principles during design can require unambiguous protocol and data-format specifications that eliminate divergent interpretations between products.
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 SDLC practices directly reduce the chance of introducing parser or state-machine inconsistencies.
Correlating logs from multiple products can surface discrepancies caused by interpretation conflicts.
Runtime monitoring of software behavior can detect adverse outcomes stemming from differing interpretations.
Supplier risk assessments can identify products whose differing interpretations create systemic exposure.
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 and correct cases where one component misinterprets another’s state or messages.
Secure development lifecycle can require consistent interface contracts and canonicalization rules that reduce interpretation conflicts between components.
Explicit application security requirements can mandate unambiguous protocol and data-format specifications that prevent divergent interpretations.
Secure architecture principles include well-defined component boundaries and shared data models that limit conflicting state perceptions.
Secure coding standards can enforce canonical input handling and strict protocol compliance to avoid misinterpretation between products.