Vulnerabilities
Misconfiguration
Compliance
CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-42258

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

Published: May 09, 2026 | Modified: Jul 10, 2026
CVSS 3.x
5.3
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
7.1 IMPORTANT
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
Vulnerability-free packages from our partners
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo
Additional information
NVDhttps://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42258
CWEhttps://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html

Net::IMAP implements Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) client functionality in Ruby. Prior to versions 0.4.24, 0.5.14, and 0.6.4, symbol arguments to commands are vulnerable to a CRLF Injection / IMAP Command injection via Symbol arguments passed to IMAP commands. This issue has been patched in versions 0.4.24, 0.5.14, and 0.6.4.

Weakness

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.

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
Net::imapRuby-lang*0.4.24 (excluding)
Net::imapRuby-lang0.5.0 (including)0.5.14 (excluding)
Net::imapRuby-lang0.6.0 (including)0.6.4 (excluding)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10RedHatruby4.0-0:4.0.3-35.el10_2*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10RedHatruby-0:3.3.10-13.el10_2*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10.0 Extended Update SupportRedHatruby-0:3.3.10-11.el10_0.2*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle SupportRedHatruby-0:2.0.0.648-39.el7_9.1*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8RedHatruby:2.5-8100020260615131019.489197e6*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8RedHatruby:3.3-8100020260615131010.489197e6*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Advanced Mission Critical Update SupportRedHatruby:2.5-8040020260630124058.522a0ee4*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Extended Update Support Long-Life Add-OnRedHatruby:2.5-8040020260630124058.522a0ee4*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Advanced Mission Critical Update SupportRedHatruby:2.5-8060020260630123825.ad008a3a*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Extended Update Support Long-Life Add-OnRedHatruby:2.5-8060020260630123825.ad008a3a*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Telecommunications Update ServiceRedHatruby:2.5-8080020260625114827.63b34585*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Update Services for SAP SolutionsRedHatruby:2.5-8080020260625114827.63b34585*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9RedHatruby-0:3.0.7-167.el9_8*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9RedHatruby:3.3-9080020260615131001.9*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9RedHatruby:4.0-9080020260619130154.9*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 Update Services for SAP SolutionsRedHatruby-0:3.0.4-161.el9_2.3*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Update Services for SAP SolutionsRedHatruby-0:3.0.7-162.el9_4.3*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Update Services for SAP SolutionsRedHatruby:3.3-9040020260630065449.9*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.6 Extended Update SupportRedHatruby-0:3.0.7-165.el9_6.1*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.6 Extended Update SupportRedHatruby:3.3-9060020260630075016.9*
JrubyUbuntuesm-apps/xenial*
JrubyUbuntuquesting*
Ruby2.3Ubuntuesm-infra/xenial*
Ruby3.3Ubuntuquesting*

Extended Description

Many protocols and products have their own custom command language. While OS or shell command strings are frequently discovered and targeted, developers may not realize that these other command languages might also be vulnerable to attacks.

Potential Mitigations

  • Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
  • When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
  • Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

References

Aqua Security is the largest pure-play cloud native security company, providing customers the freedom to innovate and run their businesses with minimal friction. The Aqua Cloud Native Security Platform provides prevention, detection, and response automation across the entire application lifecycle to secure the build, secure cloud infrastructure and secure running workloads wherever they are deployed.
Copyright © 2026 Aqua Security Software Ltd.   Privacy Policy | Terms of Use