vulnerability / NVI-00015389 / Revision 2
Mail: Email address spoofing via malformed RFC 2047 encoded-words
GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for mail. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.
This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.
01 / Meaning
Why it matters
Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.
5.3 medium
GitHub source severity; exploitability and local consequence require separate evidence.
As of · GitHub Advisory Database
5.3 MEDIUM (3.1)
security-advisories@github.com severity; no combined Null risk score.
02 / Applicability
The affected context
Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.
< 2.9.1
## 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
03 / Response
What to do next
- investigate
Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.
Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. NIST National Vulnerability Database
A fixed release is not deployment evidence.
Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.
04 / Limits
What this report cannot establish
- Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
- NVD lastModified does not establish freshness of every associated CPE record.
05 / Provenance
Sources you can inspect
Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.
- GHSA-mvxr-6m87-mv2q ↗
GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory
Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.
- CVE-2026-63435 ↗
NIST National Vulnerability Database · official catalog
Observed . This product uses data from the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
Public revision history
Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.
- Revision 2 ·
Source facts changed; compare the preserved prior revision.
- Revision 1 ·
First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.