Skip to content

STARTTLS stripping via invalid response timing

High
nevans published GHSA-vcgp-9326-pqcp Apr 24, 2026

Package

bundler net-imap (RubyGems)

Affected versions

>= 0.6.0, <= 0.6.3
>= 0.5.0, <= 0.5.13
>= 0.4.0, <= 0.4.23
>= 0, <= 0.3.9

Patched versions

0.6.4
0.5.14
0.4.24
0.3.10

Description

Summary

A man-in-the-middle attacker can cause Net::IMAP#starttls to return "successfully", without starting TLS.

Details

When using Net::IMAP#starttls to upgrade a plaintext connection to use TLS, a man-in-the-middle attacker can inject a tagged OK response with an easily predictable tag. By sending the response before the client finishes sending the command, the command completes "successfully" before the response handler is registered. This allows #starttls to return without error, but the response handler is never invoked, the TLS connection is never established, and the socket remains unencrypted.

This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to perform a STARTTLS stripping attack, unless the client code explicitly checks Net::IMAP#tls_verified?.

Impact

TLS bypass, leading to cleartext transmission of sensitive information.

Mitigation

  • Upgrade to a patched version of net-imap that raises an exception whenever #starttls does not establish TLS.
  • Connect to an implicit TLS port, rather than use STARTTLS with a cleartext port.
    This is strongly recommended anyway:
    • RFC 8314: Cleartext Considered Obsolete: Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) for Email Submission and Access
    • NO STARTTLS: Why TLS is better without STARTTLS, A Security Analysis of STARTTLS in the Email Context
  • Explicitly verify Net::IMAP#tls_verified? is true, before using the connection after #starttls.

Severity

High

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 Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability None
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:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVE ID

CVE-2026-42246

Weaknesses

Missing Report of Error Condition

The product encounters an error but does not provide a status code or return value to indicate that an error has occurred. Learn more on MITRE.

Return of Wrong Status Code

A function or operation returns an incorrect return value or status code that does not indicate the true result of execution, causing the product to modify its behavior based on the incorrect result. Learn more on MITRE.

Not Failing Securely ('Failing Open')

When the product encounters an error condition or failure, its design requires it to fall back to a state that is less secure than other options that are available, such as selecting the weakest encryption algorithm or using the most permissive access control restrictions. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions

The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow

The product supports a session in which more than one behavior must be performed by an actor, but it does not properly ensure that the actor performs the behaviors in the required sequence. Learn more on MITRE.

Credits