CVE-2026-41873
Apache Pony Mail
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-41873 is a critical-severity HTTP Request/Response Smuggling (CWE-444) vulnerability in Apache Pony Mail. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 37th 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 SC-7 (Boundary Protection) 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-2026-41873 is an Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests vulnerability, classified as HTTP Request/Response Smuggling (CWE-444), affecting all versions of the Lua implementation of Pony Mail. This flaw enables admin account takeover and has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H). The Python implementation, known as Pony Mail Foal, is not affected but remains under development and unreleased.
Remote attackers require no privileges, authentication, or user interaction to exploit this vulnerability over the network with low complexity. Successful exploitation allows full administrative account takeover, granting high levels of confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact on the affected Pony Mail instance.
Advisories note that the Lua implementation of Pony Mail is retired and unsupported, with no planned patches or fixes. Mitigation recommendations include migrating to an alternative solution or restricting access to the instance solely to trusted users. Details are available in the Apache mailing list thread and OSS-Security announcement.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-26065
Vulnerability Data
** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') vulnerability in Pony Mail leading to admin account takeover. This issue affects all versions of the Lua implementation of Pony Mail. There is a Python implementation under…
more
development under the name "Pony Mail Foal" that is not affected by this issue, but hasn't been released yet. As the Lua implementation of this project is retired, we do not plan to release a version that fixes this issue. Users are recommended to find an alternative or restrict access to the instance to trusted users. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V4.1.3V4.2.4V1.5.3V4.1.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Boundary protection at external interfaces can enforce consistent HTTP request/response parsing rules between intermediaries and endpoints.
Validating HTTP inputs at the intermediary prevents malformed messages from being interpreted inconsistently downstream.
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.
Configuration management can enforce uniform HTTP parsing rules across intermediaries, directly mitigating inconsistent interpretation.
Network monitoring can detect smuggling attempts via anomalous HTTP traffic or logs, while eliminating the inconsistency directly aids detection of such events.
Network protections can enforce consistent HTTP proxy/firewall behavior to block smuggling, and removing the weakness helps prevent unauthorized access via request smuggling.
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 HTTP request smuggling vulnerabilities in intermediary components.
Network security controls can enforce consistent HTTP parsing and proxy behavior that mitigates request smuggling.
Secure network services include hardening proxies and gateways against inconsistent HTTP interpretation.
Secure SDLC practices require threat modeling and testing for HTTP parsing inconsistencies in intermediaries.
Application security requirements can mandate strict HTTP message validation and canonicalization.
Secure architecture principles include consistent protocol handling and defense-in-depth for proxies.