HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2026 47240 netimap command injection via non synchronizing
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Affiliate program
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright ยฉ 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
Medium ยท CVSS 5.8CVE-2026-47240GHSA-8P34-64R3-MWG8

Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argumentCVE-2026-47240

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-47240 records a Medium severity (CVSS 5.8) vulnerability in Net::IMAP: Command Injection via non-synchronizing literal in "raw" argument. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps net-imap (rubygems), net-imap (rubygems), net-imap (rubygems), net-imap (rubygems). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Jun 9, 2026Updated Oct 25, 2026Source checked Nov 1, 2026First seen by HOL Jun 11, 2026Material review Oct 25, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Record context

Vulnerability class
Command Injection
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-77, CWE-93
Source
GitHub Security Advisories
Source checked
Nov 1, 2026
References
7 linked sources
Open source record

Key facts

Risk
Medium ยท CVSS 5.8
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
4 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 5.8. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps net-imap (rubygems), net-imap (rubygems), net-imap (rubygems), net-imap (rubygems). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
net-imaprubygems>=0.6.0,<=0.6.40.6.4.1
net-imaprubygems<=0.5.140.5.15
net-imaprubygems>=0.6.0 <0.6.4.10.6.4.1
net-imaprubygems>=0 <0.5.150.5.15

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for net-imap, net-imap, net-imap.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update net-imap to 0.6.4.1; net-imap to 0.5.15; net-imap to 0.6.4.1; net-imap to 0.5.15 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Jun 9, 2026

    Evidence: source:nvd:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Oct 25, 2026

    Evidence: source:nvd:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Jun 11, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • NVD vulnerability recordnvd.nist.gov
  • Source referencecve.org
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
Upstream source description

Several Net::IMAP commands accept a "raw data" argument that is sent verbatim after validation to prevent command injection. However, if a server does not support non-synchronizing literals, it may still be possible to inject arbitrary IMAP commands inside non-synchronizing literals. ### Details Raw data arguments support embedded literal values, both synchronizing and non-synchronizing. Non-synchronizing literals can only be safely sent when the server advertises any of the `LITERAL+`, `LITERAL-`, or `IMAP4rev2` capabilities. But raw data arguments do not verify server support for non-synchronizing literals prior to sending. Servers without support for non-synchronizing literals could handle them in several different ways: If a server sees a `"}\r\n"` byte sequence but can't parse the literal bytesize, it _may_ cautiously decide to close the connection, blocking any command injection attacks. However, a server without support for non-synchronizing literals may instead interpret the `"+}\r\n"` as the end of a malformed command line and respond with a tagged `BAD`. In that case, the contents of the literal will be interpreted as one or more new pipelined commands, allowing a CRLF command injection attack to succeed. This affects the following commands' string arguments: * `criteria` for `#search` and `#uid_search` * `search_keys` for `#sort`, `#thread`, `#uid_sort`, and `#uid_thread` * `attr` for `#fetch` and `#uid_fetch` Prior to `net-imap` v0.6.4, v0.5.14, and v0.4.24, raw data arguments were not validated in _any_ way, so they were also vulnerable to this attack. See CVE-2026-42257 (GHSA-hm49-wcqc-g2xg). ### Impact Fortunately, `LITERAL-` is supported by most modern IMAP servers. Even without support for non-synchronizing literals, cautious servers may handle invalid literal bytesize by closing the connection . However, servers which handle a non-synchronizing literal just like any other malformed command will enable this vulnerability. If a developer passes an unvalidated user-controlled input for one of these method arguments, an attacker can append CRLF sequence followed by a new IMAP command (like DELETE mailbox). Although this does not directly enable data exfiltration, it could be combined with other attack vectors or knowledge of the target system's attributes, e.g.: shared mail folders or the application's installed response handlers. ### Mitigation Update to a version of `net-imap` which validates server support for non-synchronizing literals before sending them. If upgrading `net-imap` is not possible: * Explicitly validate user-controlled inputs to prevent embedded non-synchronizing literals unless the server supports them. * For a simpler, more cautious approach: all embedded literals can be unconditionally prohibited, by checking that string inputs do not contain any CR or LF bytes. * Verify that the server advertises any of the `LITERAL+`, `LITERAL-`, or `IMAP4rev2` capabilities before using untrusted string inputs for the affected "raw data" arguments.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Related CVEs

  • WAVLINK WL-WN579A3-A Initial Setup Wizard adm.cgi set_wzdgwMesh os command injectionAlso CWE-77
  • WAVLINK WN579X3-D wapi.cgi port_forward os command injectionAlso CWE-77
  • WAVLINK WL-WN530HG4B wapi.cgi port_forward os command injectionAlso CWE-77
  • WAVLINK WL-WN530BE1-A protocol.csp con_check_read_finish command injectionAlso CWE-77