CVE-2026-42256
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
When authenticating a connection with SCRAM-SHA1 or SCRAM-SHA256, a hostile server can perform a computational denial-of-service attack on the client process by sending a big iteration count value.
Details
A 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::KDF.pbkdf2_hmac call. Because the PBKDF2 function is a blocking C extension and holds onto Ruby’s Global VM Lock, it can freeze the entire Ruby VM for the duration of the computation.
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:
A hostile server can perform a computational denial-of-service attack on clients by sending a big iteration count value. In order to defend against that, a client implementation can pick a maximum iteration count that it is willing to use and reject any values that exceed that threshold (in such cases, the client, of course, has to fail the authentication).
Impact
During 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.
OpenSSL::KDF.pbkdf2_hmac is a blocking C function, so Timeout cannot be used to guard against this. And it retains the Global VM lock, so other ruby threads will also be unable to run.
Mitigation
Upgrade to a patched version of
net-imapthat adds themax_iterationsoption to theSASL-*authenticators, and callNet::IMAP#authenticatewith amax_iterationskeyword argument.NOTE: The default
max_iterationsis2³¹ - 1, the maximum signed 32 bit integer, the maximum allowed by OpenSSL. To prevent a denial of service attack, this must be set to a safe value, depending on hardware and version of OpenSSL. It is the user's responsibility to enforce minimum and maximum iteration counts that are appropriate for their security context.Alternatively, avoid
SCRAM-*mechanisms when authenticating to untrusted servers.
GitHub
CVSS SCORE
6medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| net-imap | gem | - | - | >=0.5.0,<=0.5.13 | 0.5.14 |
| net-imap | gem | - | - | >=0.4.0,<=0.4.23 | 0.4.24 |
| net-imap | gem | - | - | >=0.6.0,<=0.6.3 | 0.6.4 |
CVSS:4 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: A race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability. The successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker. The attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful. Network injection. The attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
The attacker is unauthenticated prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker's payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system. Examples include: utilizing a website that has been modified to display malicious content when the page is rendered (most stored XSS or CSRF) running an application that calls a malicious binary that has been planted on the system using an application which generates traffic over an untrusted or compromised network (vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
minimos
MINI-8r34-84wm-mp5x
-
minimos
MINI-97qf-jpr2-m7hf
-
minimos
MINI-ch2q-7q5p-m959
-
minimos
MINI-cvpv-cv26-jxx7
-
minimos
MINI-vp68-5frx-jcjg
-