Skip to content

GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg CVE-2026-42257

net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands

Critical RubyGems
Severity
0.0 / 10
Critical · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.43%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 37.18% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
CWE-93 Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')
Fix
0.6.4
Upgrade net-imap to this version or later

Description

Summary

Several Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument that is sent to the server without validation or escaping. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, it may contain contain CRLF sequences, which an attacker can use to inject arbitrary IMAP commands.

Details

Net::IMAP's generic argument handling, used by most command arguments, interprets string arguments as an IMAP astring. Depending on the string contents and the connection's UTF-8 support, this encodes strings as either a atom, quoted, or literal. These are safe from command or argument injection.

But the following commands transform specific String arguments to Net::IMAP::RawData, which bypasses normal argument validation and encoding and prints the string directly to the socket:

  • #uid_search, #search, #uid_sort, #sort, #uid_thread, #thread
    • when criteria is a String, it is sent raw
  • #uid_fetch, `#fetch
    • when attr is a String, it is sent raw
    • when attr is an Array, each String in attr is sent raw
  • #uid_store, #store
    • when attr is a String, it is sent raw
  • #setquota:
    • limit is interpolated with #to_s and that string is sent raw

Because these string arguments are sent without any neutralization, they serve as a direct vector for command splitting. Any user controlled data interpolated into these strings can be used to break out of the intended command context.

Using "raw data" arguments for #uid_store, #store, and #setquota I both inappropriate and unnecessary. Net::IMAP's generic argument handling is sufficient to safely validate and encode their arguments. Users of the library probably do not expect arguments to these commands to be sent raw and might not be wary of passing unvalidated input.

The API for search criteria and fetch attributes is intentionally low-level and "close to the wire". It allows developers to use some IMAP extensions without requiring explicit support from the library and allows developers to use complex IMAP grammar without complex argument translation. Even so, basic validation is appropriate and could neutralize command injection.

Although this was explicitly documented for search criteria, it was insufficiently documented for fetch attr. So developers may not have realized that the attr argument to #fetch and #uid_fetch is sent as "raw data".

Impact

If a developer passes an unvalidated user-controlled input for one of these method arguments, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like DELETE mailbox). Although this does not directly enable data exfiltration, it could be combined with other attack vectors or knowledge of the target system's attributes, e.g.: shared mail folders or the application's installed response handlers.

The SEARCH, STORE, and FETCH commands, and their UID variants are some of the most commonly used features of the library. Applications that build search queries or fetch attributes dynamically based on user input (e.g., mail clients or archival tools) may be at significant risk.

The SORT and THREAD commands and their UID variants also handle their search criteria argument similarly to SEARCH and are subject to the same risk.

Expected use of Net::IMAP#setquota is much more limited: SETQUOTA is often only usable by users with special administrative privileges. Depending on the server, quota administration might be managed through server configuration rather than via the IMAP protocol SETQUOTA command. It is expected to be uncommonly used in system administration scripts or in interactive sessions, it should be completely controlled by trusted users, and should only use trusted inputs. Calling #setquota with untrusted user input is expected to be a very uncommon use case. Please note however this might be combined with other attacks, for example CSRF, which provide unauthorized access to trusted inputs, and may specifically target users or scripts with administrator privileges.

Mitigation

  • Update to a patched version of net-imap which:
    • validates that Net::IMAP::RawData is composed of well-formed IMAP text, literal, and literal8 values, with no unescaped NULL, CR, or LF bytes.
    • does not use Net::IMAP::RawData for #store, #uid_store, or #setquota.
  • Prefer to send search criteria as an array of key value pairs. Avoid sending it as an interpolated string.
  • If an immediate upgrade is not possible:
    • String inputs to search criteria and fetch attributes can be validated against command injection by checking for \r and \n characters.
    • Hard-coding the store attr argument is often appropriate. Alternatively, user controlled inputs can be restricted to a small enumerated list which is valid for the calling application.
    • Use Kernel#Integer to coerce and validate user controlled inputs to #setquota limit.

Affected versions

RubyGems

PackageVulnerableFixed in
net-imap
>= 0.6.0, < 0.6.4
0.6.4
net-imap
>= 0.5.0, < 0.5.14
0.5.14
net-imap
< 0.4.24
0.4.24

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.

net-imap RubyGems → 0.6.4

bundler
bundle update net-imap # Gemfile: gem "net-imap", ">= 0.6.4"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Passive
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
Low
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 9.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
  • Implementation: If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • Operation: Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
  • System Configuration: Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.

CWE-93: Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')

The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Avoid using CRLF as a special sequence.
  • Implementation: Appropriately filter or quote CRLF sequences in user-controlled input.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium Also affects net-imap
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low Also affects net-imap
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium Also affects net-imap
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium Also affects net-imap
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium Also affects net-imap
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
High Also affects net-imap
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High Also affects net-imap
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium Also affects net-imap
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