GCVE Workshop - 22 September 2026 (14:00-18:00), Luxembourg Before The Vulnopticon Conference - Registration

GHSA-MVXR-6M87-MV2Q

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-02 22:02 – Updated: 2026-09-02 22:02
VLAI
Summary
Mail: Email address spoofing via malformed RFC 2047 encoded-words
Details

Summary

Mail::Utilities.q_value_decode and Mail::Utilities.b_value_decode decoded only the first RFC 2047 encoded-word in a string and used an overly greedy pattern to match the charset token. A crafted, malformed encoded-word embedded in an address display name or local part could cause the decoded output to differ from what a human reviewer or downstream parser would expect, allowing an attacker to spoof the apparent sender/recipient address.

Details

Both decoders used a single String#match against a pattern such as /\=\?(.+)?\?[Qq]\?(.*)\?\=/m. Two problems:

  1. Single match, dropped remainder. Only the first =?charset?Q?...?= (or ?B?) word was decoded. Any additional encoded-words or surrounding text were not handled consistently, so the decoded result could silently omit or alter parts of the input.
  2. Greedy charset capture. (.+)? is greedy and matches across ? delimiters, so a malformed word could span more of the string than a strict RFC 2047 parse would, changing the boundary between "encoded" and "literal" text.

Impact

Applications using mail to parse and display or authorize based on decoded header values (From, To, Reply-To, etc.) may present or act on an address different from the one a validator inspecting the raw header would see. Primary risk is spoofing / phishing and authorization-check bypass. No RCE.

Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "RubyGems",
        "name": "mail"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.9.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-63435"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-436"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-02T22:02:32Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-09-01T21:18:35Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\nMail::Utilities.q_value_decode and Mail::Utilities.b_value_decode decoded only the first RFC 2047 encoded-word in a string and used an overly greedy pattern to match the charset token. A crafted, malformed encoded-word embedded in an address display name or local part could cause the decoded output to differ from what a human reviewer or downstream parser would expect, allowing an attacker to spoof the apparent sender/recipient address.\n\n## Details\n\nBoth decoders used a single String#match against a pattern such as /\\=\\?(.+)?\\?[Qq]\\?(.*)\\?\\=/m. Two problems:\n\n1. Single match, dropped remainder. Only the first =?charset?Q?...?= (or ?B?) word was decoded. Any additional encoded-words or surrounding text were not handled consistently, so the decoded result could silently omit or alter parts of the input.\n2. Greedy charset capture. (.+)? is greedy and matches across ? delimiters, so a malformed word could span more of the string than a strict RFC 2047 parse would, changing the boundary between \"encoded\" and \"literal\" text.\n\n## Impact\n\nApplications using mail to parse and display or authorize based on decoded header values (From, To, Reply-To, etc.) may present or act on an address different from the one a validator inspecting the raw header would see. Primary risk is spoofing / phishing and authorization-check bypass. No RCE.",
  "id": "GHSA-mvxr-6m87-mv2q",
  "modified": "2026-09-02T22:02:32Z",
  "published": "2026-09-02T22:02:32Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/mikel/mail/security/advisories/GHSA-mvxr-6m87-mv2q"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63435"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/mikel/mail/pull/1664"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/mikel/mail/commit/f9d59c2e447af42e2c3dec5a56b1bb25c7292859"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/mikel/mail"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/mikel/mail/releases/tag/2.9.1"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Mail: Email address spoofing via malformed RFC 2047 encoded-words"
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.