CVE-2014-7274
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThe IMAP-over-SSL implementation in getmail 4.44.0 does not verify that the server hostname matches a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) field of the X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof IMAP servers and obtain sensitive information via a crafted certificate from a recognized Certification Authority.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe getmail 4.44.0 IMAP-over-SSL client fails to validate that the server hostname matches the X.509 certificate's Common Name (CN) field, enabling man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept connections using certificates from trusted Certification Authorities.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 4.44.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed getmail versionRun 'getmail --version' or 'getmail --version-number' to determine the installed version. On systems with package management, use 'dpkg -l | grep getmail' (Debian/Ubuntu) or 'rpm -q getmail' (RHEL/CentOS).Affected if The version is exactly 4.44.0
-
Identify getmail configuration filesCheck for getmailrc configuration files in ~/.getmail/ directory or /etc/getmail/ directory. Each configuration file typically has a section defining the destination mail server.Affected if Configuration files exist and specify an IMAP server connection
-
Verify IMAP-over-SSL configurationInspect each getmailrc configuration file and look for the 'server' parameter under the [retriever] section. If using IMAPS, the server type will be set to 'IMAPSSL' or connection will use SSL/TLS on port 993.Affected if The retriever type is configured as IMAPSSL or otherwise uses SSL/TLS for IMAP connections
-
Confirm vulnerability applicabilityThe vulnerability exists only when getmail version 4.44.0 is used with IMAP-over-SSL (IMAPSSL) configuration. The flaw is that getmail does not validate the server hostname against the certificate CN field during SSL handshake.Affected if getmail version 4.44.0 is installed AND the retriever is configured to use IMAP over SSL/TLS (port 993 or IMAPSSL type)
You are affected if you are running exactly getmail version 4.44.0 and have configured any IMAP accounts to use SSL/TLS connections (IMAPSSL retriever type).
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpdate getmail to a version that implements proper hostname verification in the SSL/TLS handshake, or ensure connections are made only over trusted networks where MITM is not a concern.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-7274 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2014-7274 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data