Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-30227

Jstedfast Mimekit ≤ 4.15.1

Public PoC
Published
06 March 2026
Modified
12 March 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 6.9
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
EPSS Score 0.011 62th percentile
Risk Priority 47 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-30227 is a medium-severity CRLF Injection (CWE-93) vulnerability in Jstedfast Mimekit. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Content Injection (T1659); ranked in the top 38% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

MimeKit is a C# library which may be used for the creation and parsing of messages using the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension (MIME), as defined by numerous IETF specifications. Prior to version 4.15.1, a CRLF injection vulnerability in MimeKit allows…

more

an attacker to embed \r\n into the SMTP envelope address local-part (when the local-part is a quoted-string). This is non-compliant with RFC 5321 and can result in SMTP command injection (e.g., injecting additional RCPT TO / DATA / RSET commands) and/or mail header injection, depending on how the application uses MailKit/MimeKit to construct and send messages. The issue becomes exploitable when the attacker can influence a MailboxAddress (MAIL FROM / RCPT TO) value that is later serialized to an SMTP session. RFC 5321 explicitly defines the SMTP mailbox local-part grammar and does not permit CR (13) or LF (10) inside Quoted-string (qtextSMTP and quoted-pairSMTP ranges exclude control characters). SMTP commands are terminated by <CRLF>, making CRLF injection in command arguments particularly dangerous. This issue has been patched in version 4.15.1.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1659 Content Injection Initial Access
Adversaries may gain access and continuously communicate with victims by injecting malicious content into systems through online network traffic.
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-49130Shared CWE-93
CVE-2025-6175Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-43968Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-44092Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-12357Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-39394Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-35601Shared CWE-93
CVE-2025-41376Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-33128Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-21428Shared CWE-93

Affected Assets

jstedfast
mimekit
≤ 4.15.1

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V4.2.4

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Input validation directly stops untrusted data containing CRLF sequences from reaching the component that treats CRLF as a delimiter.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require input neutralization and validation to block CRLF injection.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

finds

Security testing can detect CRLF flaws but does not itself implement the neutralization.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevents CRLF injection.

prevents

Application security requirements include rules for neutralizing special characters such as CRLF in inputs.

prevents

Secure architecture principles encourage safe handling of untrusted data but do not prescribe specific CRLF controls.

prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly require neutralization of CRLF sequences, fully addressing this weakness.

References