Every applicability statement published about this vulnerability, kept as each source wrote it rather than merged into one verdict. Where sources disagree, both positions are shown.
A statement that names no version covers the whole product, which is not the same as your version falling inside a range. Orderings marked best effort come from schemes with no published comparison algorithm; exact ones follow a published specification.
Precedence decides which claim wins when two sources describe the same product over the same version range. It is a property of the source, not of the claim, and changing it re-ranks the data without re-reading a single document.
| Product | Status | Versions | Remediation | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| red_hat_enterprise_linux_5:exim exim as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | affected | no version stated vendor label: exim | no fix planned | csaf_redhat | |
| https://github.com/exim/exim | affected | < 062990cc1b2f9e5d82a413b53c8f0569075de700 | vendor fix → 062990cc1b2f9e5d82a413b53c8f0569075de700 | osv | |
| https://github.com/exim/exim | fixed | 062990cc1b2f9e5d82a413b53c8f0569075de700 | vendor fix → 062990cc1b2f9e5d82a413b53c8f0569075de700 | osv | |
| n/a/n/a n/a · n/a | affected | no version stated vendor label: all versions | none available | cve_cna |
A claim with no version range is shown as written rather than expanded: a government catalog naming only a vendor and product is a real statement at zero granularity, and inventing bounds for it would put precision in the record that the source never offered.