The isMail transport in PHPMailer before 5.2.20 might allow remote attackers to pass extra parameters to the mail command and consequently execute arbitrary code by leveraging improper interaction between the escapeshellarg function and internal escaping performed in the mail function in PHP. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incorrect fix for CVE-2016-10033.
CVE-2016-10045
“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.
Score 9.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: CRITICAL) published 2020-03-05. NVD baseline CVSS 9.8; sources differ by 0.0.
Also known asEUVD-2020-0327 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-4pc3-96mx-wwc8 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD
- 300 internet-facing services (distinct ip:port) on record running an affected version — derived from Shodan data (© Shodan); a patched service can stay counted while its port stays open
- High exploitation likelihood — EPSS 98%
- Public exploit code is available (Metasploit, other public proof-of-concept code)
A fix is available — apply it.
300 internet-facing services (distinct ip:port) on record running a version that maps to CVE-2016-10045, in our KEV-Exposure radar’s Shodan-derived sample.
How it counts: every 12 hours, when Shodan query credits allow, the radar runs one Shodan query per tracked product, reads up to 100 ip:port services per query, and keeps a service when its banner version matches a CISA-KEV or high-EPSS CVE; a service is dropped when neither a search nor a Shodan InternetDB port re-check has refreshed it for 21 days. A re-check that finds the port still listed by Shodan InternetDB refreshes the service without re-reading the banner, so a patched service can stay counted while its port stays open. A count is a banner-version inference over a sample, not an exploit test and not an internet-wide census, and the unit is a service, not a machine: a machine answering on two ports counts twice.
- CVSS v3
- 9.8
- EG Score
- 9.8CRITICALmedium confidence
- EG Risk
- 83EG Risk 83/100
EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.
How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)Severity98% × 45%Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 9.8 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.Exploitation98% × 40%FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.Automatability0% × 15%CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.Exploitation public PoC (exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high. - EPSS PROB
- 98%
- EPSS %ILE
- 99th
- KEV
- Not listed
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 98% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track* at medium mission impactTrack at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation public PoC (exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it
Published
December 30, 2016
Last Modified
June 17, 2026
Advisory Details (10)
Auto-updated Oct 7, 2026PHPMailer 5.2.20
Patch available: PHPMailer/PHPMailer v5.2.20
https://github.com/PHPMailer/PHPMailer/releases/tag/v5.2.20[20161205] - PHPMailer Security Advisory
https://developer.joomla.org/security-centre/668-20161205-phpmailer-security-advisory.htmlPHPMailer Sendmail Argument Injection | Metasploit Module
http://www.rapid7.com/db/modules/exploit/multi/http/phpmailer_arg_injectionFull Disclosure: PHPMailer < 5.2.20 Remote Code Execution PoC 0day Exploit (CVE-2016-10045) (Bypass of the CVE-2016-1033 patch)
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2016/Dec/81Packet Storm
http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/140350/PHPMailer-Sendmail-Argument-Injection.htmlPacket Storm
http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/140286/PHPMailer-Remote-Code-Execution.htmloss-security - Re: PHPMailer < 5.2.18 Remote Code Execution [updated advisory] [CVE-2016-10033]
http://openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/12/28/1Patch Availability(2)
| Vendor / Ecosystem | Fix (by version range) / Patch | Released | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| ubuntu | libphp-phpmailer (5.2.14+dfsg-1ubuntu0.1~esm1) @ xenial | 2026-11-01 | ubuntu |
| composer | phpmailer/phpmailer @ 5.2.20 (fixes >= 5.0.0, < 5.2.20) | — | ghsa |
Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.
Affected Packages
(5 across 5 ecosystems)
Alpine:v3.2(1)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| php-phpmailer | — |
| — |
Alpine:v3.3(1)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| php-phpmailer | — |
| — |
Alpine:v3.4(1)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| php5-phpmailer | — |
| — |
Alpine:v3.5(1)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| php5-phpmailer | — |
| — |
Packagist(1)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| phpmailer/phpmailer | v5.2.10 ... v5.2.9 (17 versions) |
| — |
Weakness Classification(1)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
All Vendor Advisories
(1)
Every vendor that published an advisory referencing this CVE — pulled from our cve_vendor_advisories aggregation. Click any row for the vendor's original advisory page.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 15× in last 7d / 46× in last 30d)
Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.
Showing the most recent 91 of 99 refreshes on record for this CVE.
A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 9 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 8 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.
- 2026-11-01 11:19 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-11-01 11:19 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-4pc3-96mx-wwc8 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
- 2026-11-01 08:48 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-4pc3-96mx-wwc8 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
- 2026-11-01 08:48 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-31 12:57 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-30 16:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-30 14:35 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-30 14:35 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-29 16:13 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-28 17:49 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-28 17:49 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-27 19:27 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-27 19:27 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-26 21:05 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-26 21:05 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-25 20:38 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-25 19:50 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-25 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-24 22:16 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-24 22:16 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-23 23:53 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-23 23:53 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-23 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-23 01:29 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-23 01:29 UTCVendor advisory
Show 66 moreShow fewer
- 2026-10-22 02:39 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-21 04:13 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-21 04:13 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-20 05:46 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-19 07:22 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-19 07:22 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-18 08:58 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-17 10:34 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-17 10:34 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-16 12:07 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-16 12:07 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-15 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-15 13:33 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-14 08:34 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-13 03:46 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-12 20:46 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-12 01:10 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-11 13:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-10 19:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-06 15:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-04 11:30 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-09-30 09:09 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-09-26 15:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-19 15:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-17 19:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-15 03:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-15 01:14 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-09-10 09:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-06 13:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-27 01:00 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-08-26 14:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-19 16:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-16 02:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-15 01:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-10 14:38 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-08-08 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-06 13:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-05 19:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-30 01:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-28 15:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-25 15:30 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-07-24 14:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-23 01:21 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-23 00:22 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-22 22:00 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-15 16:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-09 19:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-08 10:05 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-07-07 13:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-04 06:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-06-19 22:06 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-06-15 17:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 98% · 99th percentile
- 2026-06-12 23:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 93% · 99th percentile
- 2026-06-06 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 93% · 99th percentile
- 2026-06-05 06:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 93% · 99th percentile
- 2026-06-02 20:10 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 93% · 99th percentile
- 2026-05-31 01:25 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-05-27 13:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 93% · 99th percentile
- 2026-05-26 07:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 93% · 99th percentile
- 2026-05-22 21:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 93% · 99th percentile
- 2026-05-21 22:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 93% · 99th percentile
- 2026-05-20 10:17 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-05-20 06:39 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-05-20 03:01 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-05-19 23:23 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-05-19 19:44 UTCVendor advisory
Publicly available exploits
(4 references)Public exploit code is referenced for this CVE (1 Metasploit module, 3 Exploit-DB entries). Defenders should treat patch urgency accordingly.
- Metasploitexploit/multi/http/phpmailer_arg_injection✓ verifiedPublished Jan 3, 2017
PHPMailer Sendmail Argument Injection
Open source ↗ - Exploit-DBEDB-42221Published Jun 21, 2017
PHPMailer < 5.2.20 with Exim MTA - Remote Code Execution
Open source ↗ - Exploit-DBEDB-40986Published Jan 2, 2017
PHPMailer < 5.2.20 / SwiftMailer < 5.4.5-DEV / Zend Framework / zend-mail < 2.4.11 - 'AIO' 'PwnScriptum' Remote Code Execution
Open source ↗ - Exploit-DBEDB-40969Published Dec 27, 2016
PHPMailer < 5.2.20 - Remote Code Execution
Open source ↗
Related CVEs(same product + same vendor + same CWE)
Same product
10 shownAlpine:v3.2:php-phpmailer · Packagist:phpmailer/phpmailer
Same vendor
6 shownubuntu:USN-5956-1
Same CWE
10 shownCWE-77
- CVE-2016-10034EG 9.8EPSS p99CRITICAL
- CVE-2016-10074EG 9.8EPSS p99CRITICAL
- CVE-2016-10033EG 9.8 KEVEPSS p100CRITICAL
- CVE-2016-10107EG 9.8EPSS p96CRITICAL
- CVE-2016-10108EG 9.8EPSS p100CRITICAL
- CVE-2016-7399EG 9.8EPSS p92CRITICAL
- CVE-2015-3441EG 8.8HIGH
- CVE-2016-6656EG 7.2HIGH
- CVE-2016-1000156EG 9.8CRITICAL
- CVE-2016-6609EG 8.8HIGH
Frequently asked(5)
What is CVE-2016-10045?
When was CVE-2016-10045 made public?
Is CVE-2016-10045 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2016-10045?
How do I remediate CVE-2016-10045?
Dependency Blast Radius
See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2016-10045
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2016-10045?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.