Vulnerabilities

Vulnerability · GHSA-8c8m-p3m8-cjg8

Nodemailer: A nested comment ends early in addressparser, releasing the rest of the comment as a recipient

Published Oct 23, 2026 · catalog updated Oct 23, 2026 · Nodemailer: A nested comment

Last checked Oct 24, 2026, 15 days ago.

Open the advisory

Exploitation likelihood is not on this record for GHSA-8c8m-p3m8-cjg8. A missing EPSS score is not a low risk. Compare Nodemailer: A nested comment with the linked advisory before you change production.

Gaps on this record

  • The stored product name is a package slug. The name on this page is taken from the title (Nodemailer: A nested comment).
  • No vendor fix or required action is stored. Compare the linked advisory before you change production.
  • EPSS is missing. A missing score is not a low risk.
Severity
Medium6.5
Known exploitation
Not in CISA/VulnCheck KEV
EPSS
Awaiting synchronization with FIRST
Remediation
Version ranges on file
Affected products
npm nodemailer

### Vulnerability summary RFC 5322 comments nest. addressparser ended a comment at the first , including the one that closes a nested comment, and parsed the rest of the outer comment as header text. names with as a comment, and Nodemailer read it as the address . This is the same shape as the escaped parenthesis fixed in 10.1.2, reached through nesting instead of a quoted-pair. Affected: 3.0.0 through 10.1.3. ### Attacker capabilities The attacker controls the text of an address that an application passes to Nodemailer, or the From or To header of an inbound message parsed with mailparser. No access to the application, its configuration or its credentials is needed. The value is a syntactically valid RFC 5322 address that conformant parsers accept without defects. ### Realistic exploitation scenario An application validates a submitted address with a conformant parser and allows only its own domain. The attacker submits , which validates as . Nodemailer delivers to . In the inbound direction, a DMARC or display layer built on a conformant parser and a mail client built on mailparser disagree on the author of the same message, which is the setting for sender spoofing. The boundary crossed is the application's recipient allow list, or the author check of the receiving side. ### Proof of concept Python's reads the same value as with the display name , with no defects reported. The envelope a message gets is built from the same parse, so issues the RCPT TO shown above. ### Security impact Mail intended for an approved recipient is delivered to an attacker chosen domain, disclosing its content, and parsers built on this module report a different author than conformant ones. The misreading only occurs on values a conformant validator approves, so correct validation is bypassed. Affected are applications that pass user influenced addresses to Nodemailer and consumers of the standalone parser such as mailparser. The fix counts comment depth and ends a comment only at the t

Are you affected?

Enter the version you run. The result uses only the ranges stored on this record.

The check returns affected, not affected, or incomplete. It does not guess a version that is missing from the record.

  • npm nodemailer>= 3.0.0, < 10.1.4

How to fix GHSA-8c8m-p3m8-cjg8

  • Upgrade

    GHSA-8c8m-p3m8-cjg8 lists a fix boundary at 10.1.4. Compare the installed build with that boundary before you change production.

  • Version check

    Affected < 10.1.4

  • Official advisories

What to do

Three questions, each answered from this record only. Confirm the vendor advisory before you patch.

Should you patch?

Exploitation likelihood is not on this record for GHSA-8c8m-p3m8-cjg8. A missing EPSS score is not a low risk. Compare Nodemailer: A nested comment with the linked advisory before you change production.

Which versions are affected?

Compare what you have installed with >= 3.0.0, < 10.1.4. Compare the installed version with the linked vendor advisory before you change production.

What should an analyst verify?

CWE-20: Improper Input Validation; CWE-436. EPSS is not on this record yet. There is no CISA KEV listing. No Exploit-DB or Metasploit reference is linked. Use the source links for the original advisory.

Code

The project this record applies to. Exploit listings stay in References.

Timeline

Detection, updates, and resolution for this record.

  1. Oct 23, 2026 · GitHub Advisory Database

    Detected

    ### Vulnerability summary RFC 5322 comments nest. addressparser ended a comment at the first , including the one that closes a nested comment, and parsed the rest of the outer comment as header text. names with as a comment, and Nodemailer read it as the address . This is the same shape as the escaped parenthesis fixed in 10.1.2, reached through nesting instead of a quoted-pair. Affected: 3.0.0 th

  2. Oct 23, 2026 · GitHub Advisory Database

    Updated

    ### Vulnerability summary RFC 5322 comments nest. addressparser ended a comment at the first , including the one that closes a nested comment, and parsed the rest of the outer comment as header text. names with as a comment, and Nodemailer read it as the address . This is the same shape as the escaped parenthesis fixed in 10.1.2, reached through nesting instead of a quoted-pair. Affected: 3.0.0 th

Sources

  • GitHub Advisory DatabasePackage advisoryGHSA-8c8m-p3m8-cjg8

    Nodemailer: A nested comment ends early in addressparser, releasing the rest of the comment as a recipient

    github.com

References

Freshness

Last verified in this catalog Oct 23, 2026. Significant claims (KEV, EPSS, CVSS, affected ranges) come from the source rows above — open the original publisher for the authoritative advisory.

  • GitHub Advisory DatabaseOct 24, 2026