Workflow

Roundcube file disclosure (CVE-2017-16651)

Flag Roundcube Webmail hosts for CVE-2017-16651 by reading the version from the default response. Floors 1.1.10-1.3.3. No login.

100%

Notes on this workflow

CVE-2017-16651 — Roundcube Webmail File Read

What this checks: whether a Roundcube Webmail host runs a version affected by unauth version fingerprint for authenticated arbitrary file disclosure. Read-only: it fingerprints Roundcube Webmail and reads the version, no exploitation.

3. Detection — reads the Roundcube Webmail version from the product's default response and version banner, compares to 1.1.10 (1.1.x) / 1.2.7 (1.2.x) / 1.3.3 (1.3.x). Flags vulnerable on an affected build. No exploitation.

1. Target List — paste your Roundcube Webmail URLs here, one per line (e.g. https://host.example.com).

Overview

This workflow finds Roundcube Webmail and sorts each host by whether its version falls below the CVE-2017-16651 fixed floors. CVE-2017-16651 is authenticated arbitrary file disclosure on vulnerable Roundcube builds. This check never logs in, never opens a mailbox, and never reads a file. Give it hostnames, IP addresses, or URLs you are authorised to test. The workflow fingerprints Roundcube from the product default response and version banner, parses the version, and compares it to the per-branch floors in the graph. Every host comes back affected or not, so a fleet advisory becomes an evidenced list for exposure management. An affected row is a version signal only.

Run it on a schedule when webmail nodes lag on older 1.1 / 1.2 / 1.3 lines. A host that stayed under its branch floor after the advisory is the reason the same fingerprint stays useful.

Pipeline

  1. Read the target list. Hosts, URLs, or ranges, one per line, become the scope.
  2. Fetch each host and fingerprint Roundcube from the product default response and version banner.
  3. Parse the version and compare it to the CVE-2017-16651 per-branch floors in the graph.
  4. Collect the per-host rows: product match, version, vulnerable flag, and any fetch error.
  5. Emit the summary counts: hosts checked, product hits, vulnerable, and errors.

Inputs

  • Target scope. Hostnames, IP addresses, CIDR ranges, or URLs, one per line. Full URLs and host:port entries work too, since the workflow normalizes each into a bare host. Point it at scope you are authorised to test.

Outputs

  • results.jsonl. One row per host: URL, whether Roundcube was detected, the version read, the vulnerable flag, and detail text.
  • findings.jsonl. The same per-host verdict shaped for triage, with severity set from the vulnerable flag.
  • summary.json. Counts across the list: targets, product hits, vulnerable, and errors, plus the detection notes from the graph.

Integrations

  • HTTP. Unauthenticated fingerprint of the product default response and version banner only. No login, no mailbox access, and no file-read PoC.

Sample output

The records below are illustrative and do not come from a real run. They show one Roundcube host below a CVE-2017-16651 floor, one at or above its branch floor, and one host that is not the product.

urlis_productproduct_versionvulnerabledetail
https://webmail.example.comtrue1.3.2truebelow branch floor 1.3.3
https://webmail.example.orgtrue1.3.3falseat or above fixed release
https://shop.example.netfalsenullfalsenot identified as Roundcube Webmail
{"cve": "CVE-2017-16651", "total_targets": 3, "product_detected": 2, "vulnerable": 1, "errors": 0}

FAQ

Which Roundcube versions does this flag?

Builds below the per-branch floors in the graph: 1.1.10, 1.2.7, and 1.3.3. A version picks the matching band, then compares to that band floor. The compare uses the version the default response and banner themselves served.

Does an affected row mean file disclosure worked?

No. The check only fingerprints Roundcube and reads the version. It does not authenticate, does not open a mailbox, and does not confirm file read. The underlying issue needs an authenticated session; this workflow only maps version exposure.

Is this check safe on production?

Yes. It is a read-only unauthenticated HTTP fingerprint of the public product response. It does not log in or touch mailbox data.

Does the check need credentials?

No. It fingerprints the public default response the way an external scanner would, even though the CVE itself is authenticated.

What is CVE-2017-16651?

Authenticated arbitrary file disclosure on vulnerable Roundcube Webmail builds. This workflow maps hosts to that CVE by unauthenticated version exposure only.

Get a personalized demo

See Trickest in Action

A 30-minute walkthrough. We map the platform to your stack and answer pricing and deployment questions for your environment.