GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3 — nodemailer
MEDIUMGHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3 is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.4) CWE-93 vulnerability in nodemailer. A fix is available for nodemailer — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Nodemailer: CRLF injection in Nodemailer List-* header comments allows arbitrary message header injection
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 376,715 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
How broadly this vulnerability is actually deployed: weekly install volume shows current usage, and reverse-dependency count shows how many other packages break if it stays unpatched.
nodemailernpmDescription
Summary
Nodemailer constructs List-* headers from the caller-provided list message option using internally prepared header values. The list.*.comment field is inserted into those prepared values without removing CR (\r) or LF (\n) characters. Because prepared headers bypass the normal header-value sanitizer and are passed to mimeFuncs.foldLines(), a CRLF sequence in a list comment is emitted as an actual header boundary in the generated RFC822 message.
An application that lets a lower-privileged or unauthenticated user influence list.help.comment, list.unsubscribe.comment, list.subscribe.comment, list.post.comment, list.owner.comment, list.archive.comment, or list.id.comment can therefore be made to generate messages containing attacker-chosen additional headers.
Details
Source-to-sink evidence:
lib/mailer/mail-message.js:241-249calls_getListHeaders(this.data.list)and adds each returned value withthis.message.addHeader(listHeader.key, value).lib/mailer/mail-message.js:253-296builds each list header value as{ prepared: true, foldLines: true, value: ... }.- For
List-ID,lib/mailer/mail-message.js:272-279copiesvalue.commentinto the generated header value. IfmimeFuncs.isPlainText(comment)returns true, it wraps the comment in quotes rather than encoding or CRLF-normalizing it. - For the other
List-*headers,lib/mailer/mail-message.js:283-288copiesvalue.commentinto(<comment>). IfmimeFuncs.isPlainText(comment)returns true, the value is not encoded or CRLF-normalized. lib/mime-node/index.js:323-351accepts the prepared header object.lib/mime-node/index.js:533-540trustsoptions.prepared; whenfoldLinesis set, it pushesmimeFuncs.foldLines(key + ': ' + value)directly into the header block.- The normal header-value sanitizer path is bypassed because the value is marked prepared. By contrast, ordinary unprepared header values are normalized in the regular header-building path.
lib/mailer/mail-message.js:299-308removes whitespace and angle brackets fromlist.*.url, so the confirmed injection source is thecommentfield, not the URL field.
Default/common exposure evidence:
lib/nodemailer.js:21-60exposes the publiccreateTransport(...).sendMail(...)flow used by the package.examples/full.js:106-123documentslist.unsubscribe.commentandlist.id.commentas normal message options.- The behavior is in shipped runtime code and does not require test-only code, non-default build steps, or undocumented internals.
False-positive screening and negative controls:
- SMTP command construction was separately reviewed. Envelope sender/recipients reject CRLF before SMTP commands, EHLO names strip CRLF, SIZE is numeric, and DSN fields are encoded; no SMTP command-injection variant was confirmed.
- Ordinary
subjectheader input containing CRLF was normalized to a singleSubject:header and did not createX-Injectedin the local control case. - Address display names and MIME filename/content-type parameters were reviewed by a focused MIME/header audit and were encoded or CRLF-normalized in local checks.
prepared: truecustom headers are an explicit low-level escape hatch, but this issue is different because Nodemailer itself creates prepared headers from the documentedlist.*.commentoption.
Variant analysis:
Local testing confirmed the same root cause for comments in List-Help, List-Unsubscribe, List-Subscribe, List-Post, List-Owner, List-Archive, and List-ID. These should be fixed together by rejecting or normalizing CR/LF in list comments before prepared header generation, or by avoiding the prepared-header bypass for caller-controlled list values.
Affected version evidence and uncertainty:
- Confirmed vulnerable:
nodemailer8.0.8 at commit15138a84c543c20aa399218534cdbbfa2ea1ce55. - Git history shows
_getListHeaderspresent in historical commits including22fcff8(v4.3.0) and related list-header work in9b4f90a(v3.1.8), but older versions were not dynamically tested during this audit. - Affected range is therefore recorded as unknown beyond the confirmed current version.
- No patched version was identified in this checkout.
Severity rationale:
- AV: The vulnerable library path is reached through application-level message submission in typical networked applications that use Nodemailer.
- AC: A single CRLF sequence in a documented message option triggers the issue.
- PR: Conservative assumption that the attacker is a lower-privileged user of an application that exposes list metadata fields. Some applications could expose this to unauthenticated users, but that was not assumed.
- UI: No maintainer or victim interaction is needed after the application accepts the message object.
- S: The impact remains in the application/mail-generation security scope.
- C/I: Injected headers can affect message metadata, mail-client/filter interpretation, and downstream mail-pipeline decisions. No SMTP envelope recipient injection or code execution was demonstrated.
- A: No availability impact was demonstrated.
Final self-review:
- Reproduction evidence was generated locally from this checkout with a safe in-memory
streamTransportPoC and a negativeSubjectcontrol case. - The PoC is non-destructive and does not send network traffic outside the process.
- The observed output contains an actual CRLF-delimited injected header line.
- Reachability, sanitizer bypass, package exposure, variants, and non-exploitable sibling paths were checked as described above.
- The affected range is not overclaimed; only the current tested version is confirmed vulnerable.
PoC
From a clean checkout of nodemailer at commit 15138a84c543c20aa399218534cdbbfa2ea1ce55, run:
node <<'NODE'
'use strict';
const nodemailer = require('./');
const headersEnd = raw => raw.slice(0, raw.indexOf('\r\n\r\n'));
const hasStandaloneInjected = raw => /\r\nX-Injected: yes\)/.test(raw) || /\r\nX-Injected: yes\r\n/.test(raw);
(async () => {
const transport = nodemailer.createTransport({ streamTransport: true, buffer: true });
const positive = await transport.sendMail({
from: '[email protected]',
to: '[email protected]',
subject: 'control',
list: { unsubscribe: { url: 'https://example.test/u', comment: 'ok\r\nX-Injected: yes' } },
text: 'body'
});
const positiveRaw = positive.message.toString('utf8');
console.log('POSITIVE_HAS_INJECTED=' + hasStandaloneInjected(positiveRaw));
console.log('POSITIVE_LIST_LINE=' + JSON.stringify(headersEnd(positiveRaw).split('\r\n').filter(line => /^List-Unsubscribe:|^X-Injected:/.test(line)).join('\n')));
const control = await transport.sendMail({
from: '[email protected]',
to: '[email protected]',
subject: 'safe\r\nX-Injected: no',
text: 'body'
});
const controlRaw = control.message.toString('utf8');
console.log('CONTROL_HAS_INJECTED=' + /\r\nX-Injected: no\r\n/.test(controlRaw));
console.log('CONTROL_SUBJECT=' + JSON.stringify(headersEnd(controlRaw).split('\r\n').filter(line => /^Subject:|^X-Injected:/.test(line)).join('\n')));
const variantKeys = ['help', 'unsubscribe', 'subscribe', 'post', 'owner', 'archive', 'id'];
const result = [];
for (const key of variantKeys) {
const info = await transport.sendMail({
from: '[email protected]',
to: '[email protected]',
subject: 'variant ' + key,
list: Object.assign({}, { [key]: { url: key === 'id' ? 'example.test' : 'https://example.test/' + key, comment: 'c\r\nX-Variant-' + key + ': yes' } }),
text: 'body'
});
result.push(key + '=' + new RegExp('\\r\\nX-Variant-' + key + ': yes').test(info.message.toString('utf8')));
}
console.log('VARIANTS=' + result.join(','));
})().catch(err => { console.error(err && err.stack || err); process.exit(1); });
NODE
Observed output in this environment:
POSITIVE_HAS_INJECTED=true
POSITIVE_LIST_LINE="List-Unsubscribe: <https://example.test/u> (ok\nX-Injected: yes)"
CONTROL_HAS_INJECTED=false
CONTROL_SUBJECT="Subject: safe X-Injected: no"
VARIANTS=help=true,unsubscribe=true,subscribe=true,post=true,owner=true,archive=true,id=true
Expected vulnerable output: POSITIVE_HAS_INJECTED=true and all listed variants ending in =true. Expected negative/control output: CONTROL_HAS_INJECTED=false, showing the ordinary Subject header path does not create a separate injected header.
Cleanup: none required; the PoC uses only in-memory message generation.
Impact
A lower-privileged attacker who can influence list.*.comment fields in an application using Nodemailer can inject arbitrary additional headers into generated email messages. This can alter message semantics and downstream mail-client or mail-filter behavior, including adding attacker-controlled metadata headers. The PoC confirms header-boundary injection in the generated RFC822 output; it does not demonstrate SMTP command injection, recipient injection, or code execution.
Suggested remediation
Normalize or reject CR and LF in list.*.comment before constructing prepared List-* headers. Prefer sharing the same CRLF-neutralization behavior used for ordinary header values, or avoid using prepared: true for caller-controlled list comment content. Add regression tests for CRLF in every documented list comment-bearing field and verify that generated messages do not contain attacker-controlled standalone headers.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📦npm | nodemailer | all versions | 8.0.9npm install nodemailer@8.0.9 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for nodemailer, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update nodemailer to 8.0.9 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3 across npm dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.