CVE Tools

CVE-2026-114721

No known exploitation. EPSS puts it in the 21st percentile. Fixed versions are out.

Published Updated Sources: CVE.org, NVD

What to do

Find your product and version, then upgrade to the build on the right.

  • Roundcube WebmailAffected: ≥ 1.6.0, < 1.6.20Upgrade to: 1.6.20Affected: ≥ 1.7.0, < 1.7.5Upgrade to: 1.7.5Stated by: CVE record

Versions as the sources state them. Full version matrix after sign-in

What it is

From the CVE record

Roundcube Webmail before 1.6.20 and 1.7.x before 1.7.5 allows the disabled_actions configuration setting to be bypassed. The check compared only the action name as requested, so a remote authenticated attacker could reach an action listed in disabled_actions by requesting it through its deprecated alias instead. Upstream fixed this in the commit “Fix bug where deprecated action aliases bypassed `disabled_actions` setting”, which moves the check into rcmail::action_handler() and resolves aliases before comparing.

In plain language

No plain-language summary for this CVE yet.

Exploitation

Where each signal puts this CVE on the scale from published to confirmed exploited.

EPSS21st
CISA KEV

Not in the catalog. CISA has not confirmed exploitation.

Public exploits

No public exploit or proof of concept found in the sources we track.

EPSS

0.3% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 21st percentile of scored CVEs.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.

Lifecycle

5 events over 0 days, from the signal feeds we watch.

  1. Publishedweakness classified, att&ck mapped, record updated, record updated

Affected products

Technical detail

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Scored 3.1 by NVD.

How it is reached

  • Attack Vector NetworkExploitable remotely over the network without any special conditions
  • Attack Complexity HighRequires specific conditions like a race condition or non-default configuration
  • Privileges Required LowRequires basic user-level privileges
  • User Interaction NoneNo user interaction needed — fully automated exploitation

Scope

  • Scope UnchangedImpact is limited to the vulnerable component itself

Impact if exploited

  • Confidentiality NoneNo confidentiality impact
  • Integrity LowData modification is possible but limited in scope or consequence
  • Availability NoneNo availability impact

Weaknesses

ATT&CK techniques

Mapped from the weaknesses above (CWE to ATT&CK), not observed in attacks.

Sources

Watch the software you run.

My Stack ranks new CVEs for your products by real-world exploitation, so the next serious one reaches you without reading every advisory.

We'll flag the next CVE, public exploit or patch for Webmail, not every advisory.