Skip to content

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

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 24, 2026 in ruby/net-imap

Package

bundler net-imap (RubyGems)

Affected versions

>= 0.6.0, <= 0.6.3
>= 0.5.0, <= 0.5.13
>= 0, <= 0.4.23

Patched versions

0.6.4
0.5.14
0.4.24

Description

Summary

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

Details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact

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

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

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

Mitigation

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

References

@nevans nevans published to ruby/net-imap Apr 24, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 4, 2026
Reviewed May 4, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Local
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity High
Availability Low
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')

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

Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')

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

CVE ID

CVE-2026-42257

GHSA ID

GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.