CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
HIGH

CVE-2026-41230

CVE-2026-41230 — Froxlor has a BIND Zone File Injection via Unsanitized DNS Record Content in DomainZones::add()

Froxlor is open source server administration software. Prior to version 2.3.6, `DomainZones::add()` accepts arbitrary DNS record types without a whitelist and does not sanitize newline characters in the `content` field. When a DNS type not covered by the if/elseif validation chain is submitted (e.g., `NAPTR`, `PTR`, `HINFO`), content validation is entirely bypassed. Embedded newline characters in the content survive `trim()` processing, are stored in the database, and are written directly into BIND zone files via `DnsEntry::__toString()`. An authenticated customer can inject arbitrary DNS records and BIND directives (`$INCLUDE`, `$ORIGIN`, `$GENERATE`) into their domain's zone file. Version 2.3.6 fixes the issue.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

froxlor

froxlor

CVSS base

8.5

HIGH

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

PoC

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

froxlor

Products (1)

froxlor

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
8.5CVSS 3.1HIGH——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-93

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /elseif.

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • froxlorevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-93other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.