socket.c in fetchmail before 6.3.11 does not properly handle a '\0' character in a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) field of an
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 25/100)
- 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: 1.5% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 74.1% of all records.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: fetchmail (Debian:12) 6.3.9~rc2-6; fetchmail (Debian:4.0) 6.3.6-1etch2; fetchmail (Debian:5.0) 6.3.9~rc2-4+lenny1.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to fetchmail (Debian:12) 6.3.9~rc2-6; fetchmail (Debian:4.0) 6.3.6-1etch2; fetchmail (Debian:5.0) 6.3.9~rc2-4+lenny1 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
socket.c in fetchmail before 6.3.11 does not properly handle a '\0' character in a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) field of an X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof arbitrary SSL servers via a crafted certificate issued by a legitimate Certification Authority, a related issue to CVE-2009-2408.
- Published
- Aug 7, 2009
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.5% · 74th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-310
Report tools
Action score
25
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 25 / 40 · 6.4 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 1.5%
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 6.3.10 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 6.3.9~rc2-6 | 6.3.9~rc2-6 |
| Debian:4.0 | fetchmail | before 6.3.6-1etch2 | 6.3.6-1etch2 |
| Debian:5.0 | fetchmail | before 6.3.9~rc2-4+lenny1 | 6.3.9~rc2-4+lenny1 |
| openSUSE:Tumbleweed | fetchmail | before 6.3.26-13.4 | 6.3.26-13.4 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | fetchmail | before 0:6.2.0-3.el3.5 | 0:6.2.0-3.el3.5 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | fetchmail-debuginfo | before 0:6.2.0-3.el3.5 | 0:6.2.0-3.el3.5 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | fetchmail | before 0:6.2.5-6.0.1.el4_8.1 | 0:6.2.5-6.0.1.el4_8.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:4::as | fetchmail-debuginfo | before 0:6.2.5-6.0.1.el4_8.1 | 0:6.2.5-6.0.1.el4_8.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client_workstation | fetchmail | before 0:6.3.6-1.1.el5_3.1 | 0:6.3.6-1.1.el5_3.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:5::client_workstation | fetchmail-debuginfo | before 0:6.3.6-1.1.el5_3.1 | 0:6.3.6-1.1.el5_3.1 |
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-2006-5867fetchmail before 6.3.6-rc4 does not properly enforce TLS and may transmit cleartext passwords over unsecured links if certain circumstances 32Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-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
- ← EarlierCVE-2008-2711Jun 16, 2008 · fetchmail 6.3.8 and earlier, when running in -v -v (aka verbose) mode, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash and persi18Monitor
- Later →CVE-2010-0562Feb 8, 2010 · The sdump function in sdump.c in fetchmail 6.3.11, 6.3.12, and 6.3.13, when running in verbose mode on platforms for which char is signed, a28Monitor
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 | 6.3.9~rc2-6 · Debian:12 | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:fetchmail | 6.3.26-13.4 · openSUSE:Tumbleweed | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:fetchmail | 0:6.2.0-3.el3.5 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::as | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:fetchmail-debuginfo | 0:6.2.0-3.el3.5 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:3::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
- P · data can be read
- Integrity
- P · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- none
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Confidentiality impact
- P
- Integrity impact
- P
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-310 · Cryptographic IssuesCVSS vector
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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.
MITRE has no CAPEC/ATT&CK mapping for this CWE.
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (16 more)Show less
- fetchmail.berlios.de/fetchmail-SA-2009-01.txt
- lists.apple.com/archives/security-announce/2009/Nov/msg00000.html
- marc.info/?l=oss-security&m=124949601207156&w=2
- osvdb.org/56855
- secunia.com/advisories/36175
- secunia.com/advisories/36179
- secunia.com/advisories/36236
- support.apple.com/kb/HT3937
- www.debian.org/security/2009/dsa-1852
- www.mandriva.com/security/advisories?name=MDVSA-2009:201
- www.securityfocus.com/bid/35951
- www.securitytracker.com/id?1022679
- www.slackware.com/security/viewer.php?l=slackware-security&y=2009&m=slackware-security.543463
- www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2009/2155
- www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2009/3184
- oval.cisecurity.org/repository/search/definition/oval%3Aorg.mitre.oval%3Adef%3A11059
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.