fetchmail before 6.3.6-rc4 does not properly enforce TLS and may transmit cleartext passwords over unsecured links if certain circumstances
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 32/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 4.5% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 91.3% of all records.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: fetchmail (Debian:12) 6.3.6-1; fetchmail (Debian:3.1) 6.2.5-12sarge5; fetchmail (openSUSE:Tumbleweed) 6.4.21-2.1.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to fetchmail (Debian:12) 6.3.6-1; fetchmail (Debian:3.1) 6.2.5-12sarge5; fetchmail (openSUSE:Tumbleweed) 6.4.21-2.1 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
fetchmail before 6.3.6-rc4 does not properly enforce TLS and may transmit cleartext passwords over unsecured links if certain circumstances occur, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks.
- Published
- Dec 31, 2006
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 4.5% · 91th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-20
Report tools
Action score
32
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 31 / 40 · 7.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 1 / 30 · 4.5%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| fetchmail | fetchmail | cpe:2.3:a:fetchmail:fetchmail |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- fetchmail fetchmailup to 6.3.6 inclusive
- fetchmail fetchmail4.5.1
- fetchmail fetchmail4.5.2
- fetchmail fetchmail4.5.3
- fetchmail fetchmail4.5.4
- fetchmail fetchmail4.5.5
- fetchmail fetchmail4.5.6
- fetchmail fetchmail4.5.7
- fetchmail fetchmail4.5.8
- fetchmail fetchmail4.6.0
- fetchmail fetchmail4.6.1
- fetchmail fetchmail4.6.2
- fetchmail fetchmail4.6.3
- fetchmail fetchmail4.6.4
- fetchmail fetchmail4.6.5
- fetchmail fetchmail4.6.6
- fetchmail fetchmail4.6.7
- fetchmail fetchmail4.6.8
- fetchmail fetchmail4.6.9
- fetchmail fetchmail4.7.0
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian:12 | fetchmail | before 6.3.6-1 | 6.3.6-1 |
| Debian:3.1 | fetchmail | before 6.2.5-12sarge5 | 6.2.5-12sarge5 |
| openSUSE:Tumbleweed | fetchmail | before 6.4.21-2.1 | 6.4.21-2.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:2.1::as | fetchmail | before 0:5.9.0-21.7.3.el2.1.4 | 0:5.9.0-21.7.3.el2.1.4 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:2.1::as | fetchmailconf | before 0:5.9.0-21.7.3.el2.1.4 | 0:5.9.0-21.7.3.el2.1.4 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | fetchmail | before 0:6.2.0-3.el3.3 | 0:6.2.0-3.el3.3 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | fetchmail-debuginfo | before 0:6.2.0-3.el3.3 | 0:6.2.0-3.el3.3 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | fetchmail | before 0:6.2.5-6.el4.5 | 0:6.2.5-6.el4.5 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | fetchmail-debuginfo | before 0:6.2.5-6.el4.5 | 0:6.2.5-6.el4.5 |
Same product
fetchmail: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2001-1009Fetchmail (aka fetchmail-ssl) before 5.8.17 allows a remote malicious (1) IMAP server or (2) POP/POP3 server to overwrite arbitrary memory a42Plan
- CVE-2001-0101Vulnerability in fetchmail 5.5.0-2 and earlier in the AUTHENTICATE GSSAPI command.41Plan
- CVE-2006-5974fetchmail 6.3.5 and 6.3.6 before 6.3.6-rc4, when refusing a message delivered via the mda option, allows remote attackers to cause a denial 32Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2005-4348Dec 20, 2005 · fetchmail before 6.3.1 and before 6.2.5.5, when configured for multidrop mode, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (applica32Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2006-0321Jan 23, 2006 · fetchmail 6.3.0 and other versions before 6.3.2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via crafted e-mail messages tha21Monitor
- Later →CVE-2007-4565Aug 27, 2007 · sink.c in fetchmail before 6.3.9 allows context-dependent attackers to cause a denial of service (NULL dereference and application crash) by21Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| debian:fetchmail | 6.3.6-1 · Debian:12 | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:fetchmail | 6.4.21-2.1 · openSUSE:Tumbleweed | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:fetchmail | 0:5.9.0-21.7.3.el2.1.4 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:2.1::as | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:fetchmail-debuginfo | 0:6.2.0-3.el3.3 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:fetchmailconf | 0:5.9.0-21.7.3.el2.1.4 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:2.1::as | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- C · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- none
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Confidentiality impact
- C
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-20 · Improper Input ValidationCVSS vector
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:N/A:N
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesCAPEC-10likelihood: High · High
- Server Side Include (SSI) InjectionCAPEC-101likelihood: High · High
- Cross Zone ScriptingCAPEC-104likelihood: Medium · High
- Command Line Execution through SQL InjectionCAPEC-108likelihood: Low · Very High
- Object Relational Mapping InjectionCAPEC-109likelihood: Low · High
- SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter TamperingCAPEC-110likelihood: High · Very High
- Double EncodingCAPEC-120likelihood: Low · Medium
- Subverting Environment Variable ValuesCAPEC-13likelihood: High · Very High
ATT&CK techniques
- Obfuscated Files or InformationT1027
- Masquerading: Invalid Code SignatureT1036.001
- Steal Web Session CookieT1539
- Subvert Trust Controls: Code SigningT1553.002
- Impair Defenses:Impair Command History LoggingT1562.003
- Hijack Execution Flow:Dynamic Linker HijackingT1574.006
- Hijack Execution Flow:Path Interception by PATH Environment VariableT1574.007
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (19 more)Show less
- docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305391
- fedoranews.org/cms/node/2429
- fetchmail.berlios.de/fetchmail-SA-2006-02.txt
- lists.apple.com/archives/Security-announce/2007/Apr/msg00001.html
- osvdb.org/31580
- secunia.com/advisories/23631
- secunia.com/advisories/23695
- secunia.com/advisories/23714
- secunia.com/advisories/23781
- secunia.com/advisories/23804
- secunia.com/advisories/23838
- secunia.com/advisories/23923
- secunia.com/advisories/24007
- secunia.com/advisories/24151
- secunia.com/advisories/24174
- secunia.com/advisories/24284
- secunia.com/advisories/24966
- security.gentoo.org/glsa/glsa-200701-13.xml
- securitytracker.com/id?1017478
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.