Skip to main content

Zimbra Collaboration Suite EUVDEUVD-2026-108971

| CVE-2026-93630 MEDIUM
Incorrect Behavior Order: Validate Before Canonicalize (CWE-180)
2026-10-23 rapid7 GHSA-34q7-82vg-cv73
4.3
CVSS 3.1 · Vendor: rapid7
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain

  1. Access
    Send crafted HTML email with form to recipient
  2. Delivery
    Percent-encoded form-action hostname evades DefangFilter/ActionAttributePolicy
  3. Exploit
    Recipient opens mail in Classic and submits form
  4. Execution
    Browser canonicalizes URL to Zimbra origin with auth cookie
  5. Impact
    Authenticated request lands on a non-CSRF-protected endpoint

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A05:2025 - Injection
ASVS 5.0
V1 - Encoding and Sanitization Leading special element handling
Exploitation Conditions

Exploitation requires: (1) the recipient to use the Zimbra Classic web client (not Modern), open the attacker's crafted email, and manually submit the embedded form; (2) the form-action to use a percent-encoded hostname that defeats the pre-canonicalization hostname comparison in DefangFilter and the OWASP ActionAttributePolicy; and (3) for any state-changing effect, a target Zimbra endpoint that accepts the resulting authenticated request WITHOUT CSRF-token validation - the flaw explicitly does not bypass CSRF tokens on its own. Limiting factors that reduce realistic risk: mandatory user interaction (open plus explicit form submission in Classic), dependence on a CSRF-token-unprotected endpoint, and the affected versions being ZCS 10.1.16 and 10.1.21.

Impact

This is a medium-severity (CVSS 4.3) input-validation/order-of-operations flaw (CWE-180, validate-before-canonicalize). The CVSS vector CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N shows a network-reachable, low-complexity bypass requiring no attacker privileges (PR:N - the sender is unauthenticated) but mandatory victim interaction (UI:R) and yielding only limited integrity impact (I:L; no confidentiality or availability impact). The vuln.today Decision label is this_month, not act_now/emergency, which aligns with the modest score. No EPSS probability, no CISA KEV listing, and no confirmed working exploit are present in the input, so there is no signal of active or widespread exploitation - a Rapid7 research blog by the reporter describes the technique, but the input does not mark it as confirmed working exploit code. Crucially, the flaw does NOT by itself produce a state change: the description states it does not bypass CSRF-token checks, so a real attack additionally requires a target endpoint that accepts the request without CSRF protection, further reducing real-world risk. Net: a legitimate patch-this-month item for Zimbra operators rather than an emergency. Note a data conflict: the description says the issue is present in ZCS 10.1.21, while EUVD lists affected as '0 < 10.1.21' (implying 10.1.21 is fixed) - verify the exact fixed build with the vendor.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An unauthenticated attacker emails a victim an HTML message containing a form whose action targets the Zimbra host via a percent-encoded hostname that survives DefangFilter and the OWASP ActionAttributePolicy (which compare hostnames before browser URL canonicalization). When the recipient opens the message in the Classic web client and submits the form, the browser canonicalizes the URL and posts to the normal Zimbra origin carrying the victim's authentication cookie. Rapid7 documented the technique; no verified working exploit code is confirmed in the input, and achieving an actual state-changing action still requires an endpoint that does not enforce CSRF-token checks.

This Month Plan within 30 days. Why: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9).
Patch available 0.4% exploitation probability (EPSS)

Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – Oct 23, 2026

Zimbra Collaboration Suite compares the hostname in an emailed form's action attribute against the request hostname before the browser applies URL canonicalization, so a percent-encoded hostname slips past the email sanitizers and the browser then submits the form to the real Zimbra origin with the recipient's session cookie attached. The flaw sits in DefangFilter and the OWASP ActionAttributePolicy used by the Classic web client, and is reported in ZCS 10.1.16 and 10.1.21; an unauthenticated sender can deliver the crafted email, but exploitation requires the recipient to open it in Classic and manually submit the form (CVSS 4.3, CWE-180). It does not defeat CSRF tokens, so any state-changing outcome additionally depends on a Zimbra endpoint that accepts the resulting authenticated request without token validation; no public exploit code or active exploitation has been identified at time of analysis, and a vendor patch is available.

RemediationAI

A vendor patch is available: apply the current Zimbra Collaboration Suite release and review the official advisory index at https://wiki.zimbra.com/wiki/Zimbra_Security_Advisories for the fixed build corresponding to your 10.1.x branch, noting that the source data does not state an exact fixed version number and that 10.1.21 is listed as affected in the primary report. Because exploitation is confined to the Classic web client - the recipient must render the crafted message in Classic and submit the embedded form - switching users to the Modern web client removes the exploitable rendering path, at the cost of the Classic-only features and workflows those users depend on. The flaw does not bypass CSRF tokens, so ensuring that all state-changing Zimbra endpoints enforce CSRF-token validation (verified directly, not assumed from the presence of a token field) eliminates the state-changing consequence even when a forged same-origin form is submitted; the trade-off is that legacy or third-party integrations posting without tokens will break and need to be reworked. Operating on the this_month priority, scheduling the upgrade within the current patch cycle is appropriate given the required user interaction, the dependency on a token-unprotected endpoint, and the absence of identified public exploit code.

Affected VersionsENISA

Zimbra Collaboration Suite 0 <10.1.21

Affected Packages

euvd zimbra_collaboration_suite fix: 10.1.21

Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)

Affects your stack

Affects 1 package in euvd

Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.

Technical ContextAI · show details

The issue is an order-of-operations error in input validation (CWE-180, validate-before-canonicalize) inside Zimbra's HTML email sanitization pipeline. Two components are named: DefangFilter, Zimbra's email content scrubber, and the OWASP Java HTML Sanitizer ActionAttributePolicy that governs permitted values for the form-action attribute. Both compare the hostname extracted from a form's action URL against the hostname of the incoming request, and they do so on the raw, still percent-encoded string rather than on the canonicalized form the browser will actually resolve. A percent-encoded hostname therefore does not match the Zimbra host during the sanitizer's comparison and is left intact in the delivered message, while the browser later canonicalizes the same string and resolves it back to the normal Zimbra origin - so the submitted form arrives as a same-origin, authenticated request in the context of the Classic client. The sanitizer's intent is to prevent emails from posting forms at the Zimbra host; that boundary is what the canonicalization mismatch breaks. The sanitization layer is a filter on message content, not an authorization or anti-CSRF control, which is why the vendor's own framing is explicit that endpoint CSRF-token checks are unaffected - the bug moves a request to the trusted origin but does not supply the token. Affected code paths are reached when HTML mail is rendered in the Classic web client; the assessment confirms exploitation requires Classic rather than Modern, and the CPE cpe:2.3:a:zimbra:zimbra_collaboration_suite with the EUVD range 0 to <10.1.21 points at the ZCS collaboration server as the single affected product.

Know when Zimbra Collaboration Suite gets its next vulnerability

  • Watch products and get an email when something new is published
  • Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
  • Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources

No credit card · 7-day full trial

Severity by source

Vendor (rapid7) PRIMARY 4.3 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
vuln.today AI 4.3 MEDIUM

Unauthenticated email sender (PR:N) over the network (AV:N) with a reliable encoding trick (AC:L) but requiring the victim to open and submit in Classic (UI:R); only limited integrity impact (I:L), no C or A.

3.1 AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
4.0 AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Primary rating from Vendor (rapid7).

CVSS VectorVendor: rapid7

Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
Low
Privileges Required
None
User Interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Lifecycle Timeline

1
Patch available
Oct 23, 2026 - 14:02 EUVD

DescriptionCVE.org

A hostname canonicalization vulnerability in the email HTML sanitizers of Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) allows an unauthenticated sender to bypass the restriction on forms that target the Zimbra host. DefangFilter and the OWASP ActionAttributePolicy compare the form-action hostname with the request hostname before browser URL canonicalization. A percent-encoded hostname can therefore survive sanitization while the browser submits the form to the normal Zimbra origin with the recipient's authentication cookie. This permits authenticated form requests from a crafted email after the recipient opens it in Classic and submits the form. The issue is present in ZCS 10.1.16 and 10.1.21. It does not bypass an endpoint's CSRF-token checks; a state-changing attack additionally requires an endpoint that accepts the resulting request without that protection.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.4%
Top 66% exploitable
Prevalence
Medium
widely used enterprise email/collaboration platform, common but not universal
Data Quality
4 sources
Confidence: Medium

How this decision was reached

The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.

SignalValue
Severity MEDIUM
CISA KEV No
Public POC No
EPSS 0.4%
Patch available Yes
Active threat No
Deciding rule
MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9)
What every action level means
Emergency Immediate action required. Criteria: CRITICAL + in CISA KEV (actively exploited) without patch, OR CRITICAL + EPSS > 30% without patch, OR CRITICAL + active threat signals without patch.
Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Criteria: in KEV with patch available, OR CRITICAL + public POC, OR HIGH + EPSS > 10%, OR CRITICAL + active threat, OR any CRITICAL severity.
This Week Schedule remediation this week. Criteria: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9). Patch within normal change window.
This Month Plan within 30 days. Criteria: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9), lower exploitation probability. Include in regular patch cycle.
Monitor Track and reassess. Criteria: LOW severity (CVSS 0.1-3.9), minimal exploitation risk. No immediate action needed.

SSVC AssessmentENISA

SSVC Decision· derived
Scheduled
Exploitation· derived
None
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable· derived
No
Human Impact· derived
Medium

Priority Score

22
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +22
PoC: 0
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: 0
Gov advisory: 0

Attack Technique

Cross-Site Request Forgery exploits the automatic credential inclusion behavior of web browsers.

CVE-2022-41352 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Sep 26

An issue was discovered in Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) 8.8.15 and 9.0. Rated critical severity (CVSS 9.8), this vulnerabi

CVE-2022-37042 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Aug 12

Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) 8.8.15 and 9.0 has mboximport functionality that receives a ZIP archive and extracts fi

CVE-2022-27925 HIGH POC
7.2 Apr 21

Zimbra Collaboration (aka ZCS) 8.8.15 and 9.0 has mboximport functionality that receives a ZIP archive and extracts file

CVE-2022-27924 HIGH POC
7.5 Apr 21

Zimbra Collaboration (aka ZCS) 8.8.15 and 9.0 allows an unauthenticated attacker to inject arbitrary memcache commands i

CVE-2013-7091 MEDIUM POC
5.0 Dec 13

Directory traversal vulnerability in /res/I18nMsg,AjxMsg,ZMsg,ZmMsg,AjxKeys,ZmKeys,ZdMsg,Ajx%20TemplateMsg.js.zgz in Zim

CVE-2018-6882 MEDIUM POC
6.1 Mar 27

Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the ZmMailMsgView.getAttachmentLinkHtml function in Zimbra Collaboration Sui

CVE-2025-27915 MEDIUM POC
5.4 Mar 12

An issue was discovered in Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) 9.0 and 10.0 and 10.1. Rated medium severity (CVSS 5.4), this vuln

CVE-2025-48700 MEDIUM POC
6.1 Jun 23

Cross-site scripting in Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) Classic UI allows attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript within a

CVE-2025-66376 MEDIUM
6.1 Jan 05

Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) 10.x contains a stored XSS vulnerability in the Classic UI that allows attackers to exe

CVE-2022-3569 HIGH POC
7.8 Oct 17

Due to an issue with incorrect sudo permissions, Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) suffers from a local privilege escalat

CVE-2019-9621 HIGH POC
7.5 Apr 30

Zimbra Collaboration Suite before 8.6 patch 13, 8.7.x before 8.7.11 patch 10, and 8.8.x before 8.8.10 patch 7 or 8.8.x b

CVE-2024-45519 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Oct 02

The postjournal service in Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) before 8.8.15 Patch 46, 9 before 9.0.0 Patch 41, 10 before 10.0.9,

This site uses cookies essential for authentication and security. No tracking or analytics cookies are used. Privacy Policy