CVE-2026-23760

SmarterTools SmarterMail Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel Vulnerability

Actively exploited (CISA KEV) Used in ransomware campaigns Critical 9.8 CVSS 3.1

Description

SmarterTools SmarterMail versions prior to build 9511 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability in the password reset API. The force-reset-password endpoint permits anonymous requests and fails to verify the existing password or a reset token when resetting system administrator accounts. An unauthenticated attacker can supply a target administrator username and a new password to reset the account, resulting in full administrative compromise of the SmarterMail instance. NOTE: SmarterMail system administrator privileges grant the ability to execute operating system commands via built-in management functionality, effectively providing administrative (SYSTEM or root) access on the underlying host.

Description as published by the source, in English.

Key facts

Published: 2026-01-22
Last modified: 2026-08-04
Assigned by: disclosure@vulncheck.com
CVSS vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Scored by: nvd@nist.gov (NVD Primary)
Probability of exploitation: 96.3 % among the highest of all known vulnerabilities
EPSS, next 30 days, model v2026.06.15
Fix available: Not registered in the sources

Actively exploited

CISA added this vulnerability to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue on 2026-01-26, with a remediation deadline of 2026-02-16 for US federal agencies.

Required action: Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.

Affected products

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
Smartertools	Smartermail	< 100.0.9511	Affected

Weakness type

CWE-288: Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel
The product requires authentication, but the product has an alternate path or channel that does not require authentication.

Attack techniques

Derived through the weakness type: CVE to CWE to CAPEC to ATT&CK. This shows which techniques the weakness class is historically used for. It does not assert that this vulnerability has been exploited that way.

T1083: File and Directory Discovery discovery
T1211: Exploitation for Stealth stealth
T1542.002: Component Firmware stealth, persistence
T1556: Modify Authentication Process defense-impairment, persistence, credential-access

References

https://code-white.com/public-vulnerability-list/#authenticationserviceforceresetpassword… Third Party Advisory
https://labs.watchtowr.com/attackers-with-decompilers-strike-again-smartertools-smarterma… Exploit, Third Party Advisory
https://www.smartertools.com/smartermail/release-notes/current Release Notes
https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/smartertools-smartermail-authentication-bypass-via-p… Third Party Advisory
https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2026-23760 US Government Resource
https://www.huntress.com/blog/smartermail-account-takeover-leading-to-rce Exploit, Third Party Advisory

Related at Berigo

Articles

New SmarterMail auth bypass found by analysing the patch Mentions this CVE 2026-01-22
watchTowr Labs shows how decompiling a published patch led to CVE-2026-23760 in the same code paths as an earlier critical RCE flaw.

Does this affect you?

A vulnerability matters only if you run the product, in an affected version, somewhere an attacker can reach.

Check your asset list Browse all vulnerabilities

Sources and freshness

CVE

What it is: A reference number naming one specific vulnerability, for example CVE-2024-9474.
What it tells you: Which vulnerability we are talking about, and in which product.
What it does NOT tell you: Nothing about how serious it is, whether anyone is exploiting it, or whether it concerns you.
Why it matters: Without a shared number, vendor, authority and tooling cannot discuss the same flaw.
Used with the others: The number is the key. NVD, KEV and EPSS all describe the same CVE.

NVD CWE CISA KEV EPSS

How to read this together

No single value should be used on its own. A high CVSS score does not mean a vulnerability is being exploited, and a low one does not mean it is harmless. The four sources answer four different questions.

CVE names the specific vulnerability.
NVD adds severity and technical detail about it.
CWE describes the type of mistake behind it.
CISA KEV shows that it is already being exploited.
EPSS estimates how likely exploitation is soon.

The order that decides what is urgent

Do you actually have the product?
Is the version you run affected?
Is it listed in CISA KEV?
Does it have a high EPSS score?
Is the system reachable from the internet or from others?
How important is the system to the business?
Are there compensating controls already in place?

The first two questions are not about the vulnerability at all. They are about you, and they remove most of the list before you start.

A short example

Fix this week

CVSS 6,5 (medium)

In CISA KEV: yes
EPSS: 94 per cent
A firewall facing the internet

Can be scheduled

CVSS 9,8 (critical)

In CISA KEV: no
EPSS: 0,04 per cent
A test server with no internet access

Sorted by CVSS alone, the one on the right comes first. It is the more serious flaw in theory. But the one on the left is being used against real organisations right now, and it sits where an attacker can reach it. That is the one to fix first.

The critical one still has to be fixed. It just does not have to be fixed today.

This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD. CVE and the CVE logo are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation; CVE records are used under the CVE Terms of Use. CWE is a trademark of The MITRE Corporation, used per the CWE Terms of Use. KEV data from CISA (CC0). Exploitation probability from EPSS, a FIRST.org project. Open-source package data from OSV and the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

Scores and vectors are shown as published by the sources. The ordering of results is Berigo's own editorial assessment, described on the search page, and is not NVD data. An empty result never means a system is safe.