net-imap
Ruby client api for Internet Message Access Protocol
Activity
- Latest release
- 5d ago
- Total releases
- 72
- Cadence
- ~7 days
- Last 12 months
- 18
Details
- License
- unknown OR BSD-2-Clause
- First release
- Apr 08, 2020
| Version | Released | |
|---|---|---|
0.6.7
patch
| ||
0.6.6
patch
| ||
0.6.5
patch
| ||
0.4.25
patch
3 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.5.15
patch
| ||
0.6.4.1
patch
| ||
0.3.10
patch
6 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.4.24
patch
3 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.5.14
patch
3 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.6.4
patch
3 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.6.3
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.4.23
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.5.13
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.6.2
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.6.1
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.6.0
minor
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.5.12
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.5.11
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.5.10
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.5.9
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.4.22
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.4.21
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.5.8
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.2.5
patch
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.3.9
patch
7 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.4.20
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.5.7
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
0.5.6
patch
9 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.3.8
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.4.19
patch
9 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.5.5
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.5.4
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.5.3
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.5.2
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.4.18
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.5.1
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.5.0
minor
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.4.17
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.4.16
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.4.15
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.4.14
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.4.13
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.4.12
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.4.11
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.4.10
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.2.4
patch
8 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.3.4.1
patch
9 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.4.9.1
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.4.9
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
| ||
0.4.8
patch
10 CVEs
CVE-2026-47242
GHSA-46q3-7gv7-qmgg
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via ID command argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummaryTwo Please note that passing untrusted inputs to these commands is usually inappropriate and expected to be uncommon. DetailsWhen While ImpactThis is expected to impact very few users: use of untrusted user input for either command is expected to be very uncommon. The documentation for Although client ID field values will most commonly be static and hardcoded, dynamic input sources may be used. For example, client ID fields may be set by configuration or version numbers. Using untrusted user inputs for client ID fields is expected to be uncommon. But any untrusted inputs to client ID can trivially exploit this vulnerability. Untrusted inputs to either command may include a 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of Untrusted inputs should never be used for If
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47241
GHSA-c4fp-cxrr-mj66
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Denial of Service via incomplete raw argument validation
Low
Network
Low
Low
SummarySeveral Net::IMAP commands accept a raw string argument which is only validated to prevent CRLF injection and then sent verbatim. If this string is derived from user-controlled input, an attacker can force the next command to be absorbed as a continuation of the first command. This will cause the first command to eventually fail, but also prevents it from returning until another command is sent (from another thread). That other command will not return until the connection is closed. Details
This affects the following command's arguments:
The command which contained the attacker's raw data will not be able to complete until the next command is issued. If commands are only sent from single thread, the first command will hang until the connection times out (most likely by the server closing the connection). If a second command is sent (from another thread), this would allow the server to respond to the first command. This combined command will be invalid:
So the server should respond to the first command with a But, since the server never saw a second command, the second command will never receive a tagged response and the thread that sent it will hang until the connection is closed. ImpactThis will result in unexpected crashes and timeouts, which could be used to create a simple denial of service attack. This attack will present very similarly to common network issues or server issues which also result in commands hanging or unexpectedly raising exceptions. By itself, this does not allow command injection. But the confusion caused by these errors could lead to other downstream issues, especially in a multi-threaded environment. MitigationUpdate to a patched version of
Extra caution is required when issuing commands from multiple threads. While Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-47240
GHSA-8p34-64r3-mwg8
Jun 09, 2026
Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument
Medium
Local
Low
None
Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. DetailsRaw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a This affects the following commands' string arguments:
Prior to ImpactFortunately, 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. MitigationUpdate to a version of If upgrading
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.6.4
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
+ 55 more Show less
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.24
0.4.25
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.14
0.5.2
0.5.3
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
Fixed in
0.5.15
0.6.4.1
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42257
GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via "raw" arguments to multiple commands
Medium
Local
Low
None
SummarySeveral Details
But the following commands transform specific String arguments to
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 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 ImpactIf 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 Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42258
GHSA-75xq-5h9v-w6px
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to command Injection via unvalidated Symbol inputs
Medium
Local
High
None
SummarySymbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. DetailsSymbol arguments represent IMAP "system flags", which are formatted as "atoms" (with no quoting) with a Because the Symbol input is unvalidated, it could contain invalid Although IMAP Note also that the list of valid symbol inputs should be restricted to an enumerated set of standard RFC defined flag types, which have each been given specific defined semantics. Any user-provided values outside of that list of standard "system flags" needs to use the IMAP For forward compatibility with future IMAP extentions, Net::IMAP, does not restrict flag inputs to an enumerated list. That is the responsibility of the calling application code, which knows which flag semantics are valid for its context. ImpactIf a developer passes user-controlled input as a Symbol to most Net::IMAP commands, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42256
GHSA-87pf-fpwv-p7m7
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to denial of service via high iteration count for `SCRAM-*` authentication
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryWhen authenticating a connection with DetailsA hostile IMAP server can send an arbitrarily large PBKDF2 iteration count in the SCRAM server-first-message, causing the client to perform an expensive OpenSSL enforces an effective maximum by using a 32-bit signed integer for the iteration count, Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this iteration count may be sufficient for to block all Ruby threads in the process for over seven minutes. This is listed as one of the "Security Considerations", in RFC 7804:
ImpactDuring SCRAM authentication to a hostile server, the entire Ruby VM will be locked for the duration of the computation. Depending on hardware capabilities and OpenSSL version, this may take many minutes.
Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 31 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42245
GHSA-q2mw-fvj9-vvcw
May 04, 2026
net-imap has quadratic complexity when reading response literals
Low
Network
Low
None
Summary
DetailsFor each literal in a response, Because the algorithmic complexity is super-linear, this bypasses protection from
ImpactThis consumes disproportionate CPU time in the client's receiver thread. A hostile server could use this to exhaust the client's CPU for a denial of service attack. For a response near the default Although other threads should not be completely blocked, their run time will be significantly impacted. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 51 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.10
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
Fixed in
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2026-42246
GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp
May 04, 2026
net-imap vulnerable to STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing
High
Network
Low
None
SummaryA man-in-the-middle attacker can cause DetailsWhen using This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks ImpactTLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information. Mitigation
Affected versions
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.6.2
0.6.3
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.5.10
0.5.11
0.5.12
0.5.13
0.5.2
0.5.3
+ 50 more Show less
0.5.4
0.5.5
0.5.6
0.5.7
0.5.8
0.5.9
0.4.0
0.4.1
0.4.10
0.4.11
0.4.12
0.4.13
0.4.14
0.4.15
0.4.16
0.4.17
0.4.18
0.4.19
0.4.2
0.4.20
0.4.21
0.4.22
0.4.23
0.4.3
0.4.4
0.4.5
0.4.6
0.4.7
0.4.8
0.4.9
0.4.9.1
0.1.0
0.1.1
0.2.0
0.2.1
0.2.2
0.2.3
0.2.4
0.2.5
0.3.0
0.3.1
0.3.2
0.3.3
0.3.4
0.3.4.1
0.3.5
0.3.6
0.3.7
0.3.8
0.3.9
Fixed in
0.3.10
0.4.24
0.5.14
0.6.4
References
Updated Sep 10, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev
CVE-2025-43857
GHSA-j3g3-5qv5-52mj
Apr 28, 2025
net-imap rubygem vulnerable to possible DoS by memory exhaustion
Medium
Network
Low
None
SummaryThere is a possibility for denial of service by memory exhaustion when This should not be an issue when securely connecting to trusted IMAP servers that are well-behaved. It can affect insecure connections and buggy, untrusted, or compromised servers (for example, connecting to a user supplied hostname). DetailsThe IMAP protocol allows "literal" strings to be sent in responses, prefixed with their size in curly braces (e.g. FixUpgradeUsers should upgrade to To set a global value for ConfigurationTo avoid backward compatibility issues for secure connections to trusted well-behaved servers, the default When connecting to untrusted servers or using insecure connections, a much lower
Please Note: Compatibility with lower
|