Net::IMAP implements Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) client functionality in Ruby. Prior to 0.6.5 and 0.5.15, several 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. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.6.5 and 0.5.15.
Weakness
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes trailing special elements that could be interpreted in unexpected ways when they are sent to a downstream component.
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Hardened Images | RedHat | ruby4-0-main-4.0.0-33.4.hum1 | * |
| Red Hat Hardened Images | RedHat | ruby3-4-main-3.4.8-31.3.hum1 | * |
| Jruby | Ubuntu | questing | * |
| Ruby3.3 | Ubuntu | questing | * |
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.