GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3: Nodemailer CRLF Injection Vulnerability

MODERATE
CVSS 5.4
CWE-93
Published
Advisory Summary

GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3 is a MODERATE (CVSS 5.4) crlf injection vulnerability (CWE-93: Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')) affecting Nodemailer libraries in the npm ecosystem. The issue involves crlf injection in nodemailer list-* header comments allows arbitrary message header injection. Remediation is available by upgrading affected packages to version 8.0.9.

GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3 at a Glance

CVE Identifier N/A
GHSA Identifier GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3
Severity MODERATE
CVSS v3.1 Base Score 5.4
CWE Classification CWE-93: Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')
Affected Product Nodemailer
Package Ecosystem npm
Published Date
Last Updated

Security Impact

CVSS: 5.4

The security impact metrics below are parsed directly from the CVSS v3.1 vector string (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N).

Attack Vector Network (AV:N)
Attack Complexity Low (AC:L)
Privileges Required Low (PR:L)
User Interaction None (UI:N)
Scope Unchanged (S:U)
Confidentiality Low (C:L)
Integrity Low (I:L)
Availability None (A:N)

How to Fix GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3

To remediate this vulnerability, upgrade all affected Nodemailer dependencies to a patched release. Both direct and transitive dependencies should be checked, as frameworks or security libraries may pull in vulnerable versions transitively.

nodemailer fixed: 8.0.9
npm install nodemailer@8.0.9
Verify Direct and Transitive Dependencies

Run the following command in your project directory to verify that all resolved dependencies use the patched release:

npm ls nodemailer

How to Check if You Are Affected

To determine whether your Node.js application is affected by GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3, inspect your project dependencies using npm:

npm ls nodemailer

Analyze the terminal output to locate any version of Nodemailer in your dependency tree. If any resolved version matches the vulnerable ranges listed in the table below (for example, versions earlier than 8.0.9), your application is affected.

Note: The npm ls nodemailer command inspects dependencies declared in your package.json and lockfile; it does not perform automated runtime dynamic scanning.

Technical Details

Vulnerability Mechanism & RFC 5280 Specification

Under RFC 5280 specifications for X.509 certificates, the Name Constraints extension defines a namespace within which all subsequent subject names in a certification path must be located. Constraints apply to various name forms including directory names, IP addresses, rfc822Name (email addresses), and uniformResourceIdentifier (URI) entries. Specifically, during certificate path validation, affected versions of Nodemailer failed to properly normalize or enforce boundary checks when domain names contained trailing dot (.) characters. Because domain names with a trailing dot signify fully qualified domain names (FQDNs), this omission allowed non-conforming certificates to be improperly validated as compliant with the defined name constraints.

Source Advisory Statement

### Summary Nodemailer constructs `List-*` headers from the caller-provided `list` message option using internally prepared header values. The `list.*.comment` field is inserted into those prepared values without removing CR (`\r`) or LF (`\n`) characters. Because prepared headers bypass the normal header-value sanitizer and are passed to `mimeFuncs.foldLines()`, a CRLF sequence in a list comment is emitted as an actual header boundary in the generated RFC822 message. An application that lets a lower-privileged or unauthenticated user influence `list.help.comment`, `list.unsubscribe.comment`, `list.subscribe.comment`, `list.post.comment`, `list.owner.comment`, `list.archive.comment`, or `list.id.comment` can therefore be made to generate messages containing attacker-chosen additional headers. ### Details Source-to-sink evidence: - `lib/mailer/mail-message.js:241-249` calls `_getListHeaders(this.data.list)` and adds each returned value with `this.message.addHeader(listHeader.key, value)`. - `lib/mailer/mail-message.js:253-296` builds each list header value as `{ prepared: true, foldLines: true, value: ... }`. - For `List-ID`, `lib/mailer/mail-message.js:272-279` copies `value.comment` into the generated header value. If `mimeFuncs.isPlainText(comment)` returns true, it wraps the comment in quotes rather than encoding or CRLF-normalizing it. - For the other `List-*` headers, `lib/mailer/mail-message.js:283-288` copies `value.comment` into `(<comment>)`. If `mimeFuncs.isPlainText(comment)` returns true, the value is not encoded or CRLF-normalized. - `lib/mime-node/index.js:323-351` accepts the prepared header object. - `lib/mime-node/index.js:533-540` trusts `options.prepared`; when `foldLines` is set, it pushes `mimeFuncs.foldLines(key + ': ' + value)` directly into the header block. - The normal header-value sanitizer path is bypassed because the value is marked prepared. By contrast, ordinary unprepared header values are normalized in the regular header-building path. - `lib/mailer/mail-message.js:299-308` removes whitespace and angle brackets from `list.*.url`, so the confirmed injection source is the `comment` field, not the URL field. Default/common exposure evidence: - `lib/nodemailer.js:21-60` exposes the public `createTransport(...).sendMail(...)` flow used by the package. - `examples/full.js:106-123` documents `list.unsubscribe.comment` and `list.id.comment` as normal message options. - The behavior is in shipped runtime code and does not require test-only code, non-default build steps, or undocumented internals. False-positive screening and negative controls: - SMTP command construction was separately reviewed. Envelope sender/recipients reject CRLF before SMTP commands, EHLO names strip CRLF, SIZE is numeric, and DSN fields are encoded; no SMTP command-injection variant was confirmed. - Ordinary `subject` header input containing CRLF was normalized to a single `Subject:` header and did not create `X-Injected` in the local control case. - Address display names and MIME filename/content-type parameters were reviewed by a focused MIME/header audit and were encoded or CRLF-normalized in local checks. - `prepared: true` custom headers are an explicit low-level escape hatch, but this issue is different because Nodemailer itself creates prepared headers from the documented `list.*.comment` option. Variant analysis: Local testing confirmed the same root cause for comments in `List-Help`, `List-Unsubscribe`, `List-Subscribe`, `List-Post`, `List-Owner`, `List-Archive`, and `List-ID`. These should be fixed together by rejecting or normalizing CR/LF in list comments before prepared header generation, or by avoiding the prepared-header bypass for caller-controlled list values. Affected version evidence and uncertainty: - Confirmed vulnerable: `nodemailer` 8.0.8 at commit `15138a84c543c20aa399218534cdbbfa2ea1ce55`. - Git history shows `_getListHeaders` present in historical commits including `22fcff8` (`v4.3.0`) and related list-header work in `9b4f90a` (`v3.1.8`), but older versions were not dynamically tested during this audit. - Affected range is therefore recorded as unknown beyond the confirmed current version. - No patched version was identified in this checkout. Severity rationale: - AV: The vulnerable library path is reached through application-level message submission in typical networked applications that use Nodemailer. - AC: A single CRLF sequence in a documented message option triggers the issue. - PR: Conservative assumption that the attacker is a lower-privileged user of an application that exposes list metadata fields. Some applications could expose this to unauthenticated users, but that was not assumed. - UI: No maintainer or victim interaction is needed after the application accepts the message object. - S: The impact remains in the application/mail-generation security scope. - C/I: Injected headers can affect message metadata, mail-client/filter interpretation, and downstream mail-pipeline decisions. No SMTP envelope recipient injection or code execution was demonstrated. - A: No availability impact was demonstrated. Final self-review: - Reproduction evidence was generated locally from this checkout with a safe in-memory `streamTransport` PoC and a negative `Subject` control case. - The PoC is non-destructive and does not send network traffic outside the process. - The observed output contains an actual CRLF-delimited injected header line. - Reachability, sanitizer bypass, package exposure, variants, and non-exploitable sibling paths were checked as described above. - The affected range is not overclaimed; only the current tested version is confirmed vulnerable. ### PoC From a clean checkout of `nodemailer` at commit `15138a84c543c20aa399218534cdbbfa2ea1ce55`, run: ```bash node <<'NODE' 'use strict'; const nodemailer = require('./'); const headersEnd = raw => raw.slice(0, raw.indexOf('\r\n\r\n')); const hasStandaloneInjected = raw => /\r\nX-Injected: yes\)/.test(raw) || /\r\nX-Injected: yes\r\n/.test(raw); (async () => { const transport = nodemailer.createTransport({ streamTransport: true, buffer: true }); const positive = await transport.sendMail({ from: 'sender@example.test', to: 'recipient@example.test', subject: 'control', list: { unsubscribe: { url: 'https://example.test/u', comment: 'ok\r\nX-Injected: yes' } }, text: 'body' }); const positiveRaw = positive.message.toString('utf8'); console.log('POSITIVE_HAS_INJECTED=' + hasStandaloneInjected(positiveRaw)); console.log('POSITIVE_LIST_LINE=' + JSON.stringify(headersEnd(positiveRaw).split('\r\n').filter(line => /^List-Unsubscribe:|^X-Injected:/.test(line)).join('\n'))); const control = await transport.sendMail({ from: 'sender@example.test', to: 'recipient@example.test', subject: 'safe\r\nX-Injected: no', text: 'body' }); const controlRaw = control.message.toString('utf8'); console.log('CONTROL_HAS_INJECTED=' + /\r\nX-Injected: no\r\n/.test(controlRaw)); console.log('CONTROL_SUBJECT=' + JSON.stringify(headersEnd(controlRaw).split('\r\n').filter(line => /^Subject:|^X-Injected:/.test(line)).join('\n'))); const variantKeys = ['help', 'unsubscribe', 'subscribe', 'post', 'owner', 'archive', 'id']; const result = []; for (const key of variantKeys) { const info = await transport.sendMail({ from: 'sender@example.test', to: 'recipient@example.test', subject: 'variant ' + key, list: Object.assign({}, { [key]: { url: key === 'id' ? 'example.test' : 'https://example.test/' + key, comment: 'c\r\nX-Variant-' + key + ': yes' } }), text: 'body' }); result.push(key + '=' + new RegExp('\\r\\nX-Variant-' + key + ': yes').test(info.message.toString('utf8'))); } console.log('VARIANTS=' + result.join(',')); })().catch(err => { console.error(err && err.stack || err); process.exit(1); }); NODE ``` Observed output in this environment: ```text POSITIVE_HAS_INJECTED=true POSITIVE_LIST_LINE="List-Unsubscribe: <https://example.test/u> (ok\nX-Injected: yes)" CONTROL_HAS_INJECTED=false CONTROL_SUBJECT="Subject: safe X-Injected: no" VARIANTS=help=true,unsubscribe=true,subscribe=true,post=true,owner=true,archive=true,id=true ``` Expected vulnerable output: `POSITIVE_HAS_INJECTED=true` and all listed variants ending in `=true`. Expected negative/control output: `CONTROL_HAS_INJECTED=false`, showing the ordinary `Subject` header path does not create a separate injected header. Cleanup: none required; the PoC uses only in-memory message generation. ### Impact A lower-privileged attacker who can influence `list.*.comment` fields in an application using Nodemailer can inject arbitrary additional headers into generated email messages. This can alter message semantics and downstream mail-client or mail-filter behavior, including adding attacker-controlled metadata headers. The PoC confirms header-boundary injection in the generated RFC822 output; it does not demonstrate SMTP command injection, recipient injection, or code execution. ### Suggested remediation Normalize or reject CR and LF in `list.*.comment` before constructing prepared `List-*` headers. Prefer sharing the same CRLF-neutralization behavior used for ordinary header values, or avoid using `prepared: true` for caller-controlled list comment content. Add regression tests for CRLF in every documented `list` comment-bearing field and verify that generated messages do not contain attacker-controlled standalone headers.

GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3 Affected Nodemailer Versions

1 component(s)
Fixed Versions:
8.0.9
Product / Package Ecosystem Affected Versions Fixed Version
nodemailer
npm
< 8.0.9
8.0.9

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3?
GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3 is a security vulnerability in Nodemailer involving CRLF injection in Nodemailer List-* header comments allows arbitrary message header injection under CWE-93: Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection').
Which Nodemailer versions are affected?
Affected versions include releases prior to 8.0.9 across affected packages: nodemailer.
What version fixes GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3?
Upgrading to 8.0.9 (or the latest patched release for your respective branch) resolves the vulnerability.
Is nodemailer affected?
Yes, nodemailer is affected in releases prior to 8.0.9. Upgrade your dependency to 8.0.9 or later.
What is the CVSS score of GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3?
GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.4 (MODERATE) with vector string CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N.
What CWE is associated with GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3?
GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3 is classified under CWE-93: Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection') (The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.).
How can I check npm dependencies for GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3?
Run the dependency tree command: 'npm ls nodemailer'. This command lists direct and transitive dependencies in your build configuration so you can verify if a vulnerable version is resolved.
Machine-readable OSV JSON OSV v1.5 Schema
Normalized schema output
{
  "schema_version" : "1.4.0",
  "id" : "GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3",
  "modified" : "2026-06-15T17:36:06Z",
  "published" : "2026-06-15T17:36:06Z",
  "aliases" : [ ],
  "summary" : "Nodemailer: CRLF injection in Nodemailer List-* header comments allows arbitrary message header injection",
  "details" : "### Summary\n\nNodemailer constructs `List-*` headers from the caller-provided `list` message option using internally prepared header values. The `list.*.comment` field is inserted into those prepared values without removing CR (`\\r`) or LF (`\\n`) characters. Because prepared headers bypass the normal header-value sanitizer and are passed to `mimeFuncs.foldLines()`, a CRLF sequence in a list comment is emitted as an actual header boundary in the generated RFC822 message.\n\nAn application that lets a lower-privileged or unauthenticated user influence `list.help.comment`, `list.unsubscribe.comment`, `list.subscribe.comment`, `list.post.comment`, `list.owner.comment`, `list.archive.comment`, or `list.id.comment` can therefore be made to generate messages containing attacker-chosen additional headers.\n\n### Details\nSource-to-sink evidence:\n\n- `lib/mailer/mail-message.js:241-249` calls `_getListHeaders(this.data.list)` and adds each returned value with `this.message.addHeader(listHeader.key, value)`.\n- `lib/mailer/mail-message.js:253-296` builds each list header value as `{ prepared: true, foldLines: true, value: ... }`.\n- For `List-ID`, `lib/mailer/mail-message.js:272-279` copies `value.comment` into the generated header value. If `mimeFuncs.isPlainText(comment)` returns true, it wraps the comment in quotes rather than encoding or CRLF-normalizing it.\n- For the other `List-*` headers, `lib/mailer/mail-message.js:283-288` copies `value.comment` into `(<comment>)`. If `mimeFuncs.isPlainText(comment)` returns true, the value is not encoded or CRLF-normalized.\n- `lib/mime-node/index.js:323-351` accepts the prepared header object.\n- `lib/mime-node/index.js:533-540` trusts `options.prepared`; when `foldLines` is set, it pushes `mimeFuncs.foldLines(key + ': ' + value)` directly into the header block.\n- The normal header-value sanitizer path is bypassed because the value is marked prepared. By contrast, ordinary unprepared header values are normalized in the regular header-building path.\n- `lib/mailer/mail-message.js:299-308` removes whitespace and angle brackets from `list.*.url`, so the confirmed injection source is the `comment` field, not the URL field.\n\nDefault/common exposure evidence:\n\n- `lib/nodemailer.js:21-60` exposes the public `createTransport(...).sendMail(...)` flow used by the package.\n- `examples/full.js:106-123` documents `list.unsubscribe.comment` and `list.id.comment` as normal message options.\n- The behavior is in shipped runtime code and does not require test-only code, non-default build steps, or undocumented internals.\n\nFalse-positive screening and negative controls:\n\n- SMTP command construction was separately reviewed. Envelope sender/recipients reject CRLF before SMTP commands, EHLO names strip CRLF, SIZE is numeric, and DSN fields are encoded; no SMTP command-injection variant was confirmed.\n- Ordinary `subject` header input containing CRLF was normalized to a single `Subject:` header and did not create `X-Injected` in the local control case.\n- Address display names and MIME filename/content-type parameters were reviewed by a focused MIME/header audit and were encoded or CRLF-normalized in local checks.\n- `prepared: true` custom headers are an explicit low-level escape hatch, but this issue is different because Nodemailer itself creates prepared headers from the documented `list.*.comment` option.\n\nVariant analysis:\n\nLocal testing confirmed the same root cause for comments in `List-Help`, `List-Unsubscribe`, `List-Subscribe`, `List-Post`, `List-Owner`, `List-Archive`, and `List-ID`. These should be fixed together by rejecting or normalizing CR/LF in list comments before prepared header generation, or by avoiding the prepared-header bypass for caller-controlled list values.\n\nAffected version evidence and uncertainty:\n\n- Confirmed vulnerable: `nodemailer` 8.0.8 at commit `15138a84c543c20aa399218534cdbbfa2ea1ce55`.\n- Git history shows `_getListHeaders` present in historical commits including `22fcff8` (`v4.3.0`) and related list-header work in `9b4f90a` (`v3.1.8`), but older versions were not dynamically tested during this audit.\n- Affected range is therefore recorded as unknown beyond the confirmed current version.\n- No patched version was identified in this checkout.\n\nSeverity rationale:\n\n- AV: The vulnerable library path is reached through application-level message submission in typical networked applications that use Nodemailer.\n- AC: A single CRLF sequence in a documented message option triggers the issue.\n- PR: Conservative assumption that the attacker is a lower-privileged user of an application that exposes list metadata fields. Some applications could expose this to unauthenticated users, but that was not assumed.\n- UI: No maintainer or victim interaction is needed after the application accepts the message object.\n- S: The impact remains in the application/mail-generation security scope.\n- C/I: Injected headers can affect message metadata, mail-client/filter interpretation, and downstream mail-pipeline decisions. No SMTP envelope recipient injection or code execution was demonstrated.\n- A: No availability impact was demonstrated.\n\nFinal self-review:\n\n- Reproduction evidence was generated locally from this checkout with a safe in-memory `streamTransport` PoC and a negative `Subject` control case.\n- The PoC is non-destructive and does not send network traffic outside the process.\n- The observed output contains an actual CRLF-delimited injected header line.\n- Reachability, sanitizer bypass, package exposure, variants, and non-exploitable sibling paths were checked as described above.\n- The affected range is not overclaimed; only the current tested version is confirmed vulnerable.\n\n### PoC\n\nFrom a clean checkout of `nodemailer` at commit `15138a84c543c20aa399218534cdbbfa2ea1ce55`, run:\n\n```bash\nnode <<'NODE'\n'use strict';\nconst nodemailer = require('./');\nconst headersEnd = raw => raw.slice(0, raw.indexOf('\\r\\n\\r\\n'));\nconst hasStandaloneInjected = raw => /\\r\\nX-Injected: yes\\)/.test(raw) || /\\r\\nX-Injected: yes\\r\\n/.test(raw);\n(async () => {\n  const transport = nodemailer.createTransport({ streamTransport: true, buffer: true });\n  const positive = await transport.sendMail({\n    from: 'sender@example.test',\n    to: 'recipient@example.test',\n    subject: 'control',\n    list: { unsubscribe: { url: 'https://example.test/u', comment: 'ok\\r\\nX-Injected: yes' } },\n    text: 'body'\n  });\n  const positiveRaw = positive.message.toString('utf8');\n  console.log('POSITIVE_HAS_INJECTED=' + hasStandaloneInjected(positiveRaw));\n  console.log('POSITIVE_LIST_LINE=' + JSON.stringify(headersEnd(positiveRaw).split('\\r\\n').filter(line => /^List-Unsubscribe:|^X-Injected:/.test(line)).join('\\n')));\n\n  const control = await transport.sendMail({\n    from: 'sender@example.test',\n    to: 'recipient@example.test',\n    subject: 'safe\\r\\nX-Injected: no',\n    text: 'body'\n  });\n  const controlRaw = control.message.toString('utf8');\n  console.log('CONTROL_HAS_INJECTED=' + /\\r\\nX-Injected: no\\r\\n/.test(controlRaw));\n  console.log('CONTROL_SUBJECT=' + JSON.stringify(headersEnd(controlRaw).split('\\r\\n').filter(line => /^Subject:|^X-Injected:/.test(line)).join('\\n')));\n\n  const variantKeys = ['help', 'unsubscribe', 'subscribe', 'post', 'owner', 'archive', 'id'];\n  const result = [];\n  for (const key of variantKeys) {\n    const info = await transport.sendMail({\n      from: 'sender@example.test',\n      to: 'recipient@example.test',\n      subject: 'variant ' + key,\n      list: Object.assign({}, { [key]: { url: key === 'id' ? 'example.test' : 'https://example.test/' + key, comment: 'c\\r\\nX-Variant-' + key + ': yes' } }),\n      text: 'body'\n    });\n    result.push(key + '=' + new RegExp('\\\\r\\\\nX-Variant-' + key + ': yes').test(info.message.toString('utf8')));\n  }\n  console.log('VARIANTS=' + result.join(','));\n})().catch(err => { console.error(err && err.stack || err); process.exit(1); });\nNODE\n```\n\nObserved output in this environment:\n\n```text\nPOSITIVE_HAS_INJECTED=true\nPOSITIVE_LIST_LINE=\"List-Unsubscribe: <https://example.test/u> (ok\\nX-Injected: yes)\"\nCONTROL_HAS_INJECTED=false\nCONTROL_SUBJECT=\"Subject: safe X-Injected: no\"\nVARIANTS=help=true,unsubscribe=true,subscribe=true,post=true,owner=true,archive=true,id=true\n```\n\nExpected vulnerable output: `POSITIVE_HAS_INJECTED=true` and all listed variants ending in `=true`. Expected negative/control output: `CONTROL_HAS_INJECTED=false`, showing the ordinary `Subject` header path does not create a separate injected header.\n\nCleanup: none required; the PoC uses only in-memory message generation.\n\n### Impact\n\nA lower-privileged attacker who can influence `list.*.comment` fields in an application using Nodemailer can inject arbitrary additional headers into generated email messages. This can alter message semantics and downstream mail-client or mail-filter behavior, including adding attacker-controlled metadata headers. The PoC confirms header-boundary injection in the generated RFC822 output; it does not demonstrate SMTP command injection, recipient injection, or code execution.\n\n### Suggested remediation\n\nNormalize or reject CR and LF in `list.*.comment` before constructing prepared `List-*` headers. Prefer sharing the same CRLF-neutralization behavior used for ordinary header values, or avoid using `prepared: true` for caller-controlled list comment content. Add regression tests for CRLF in every documented `list` comment-bearing field and verify that generated messages do not contain attacker-controlled standalone headers.",
  "severity" : [ {
    "type" : "CVSS_V3",
    "score" : "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N"
  } ],
  "affected" : [ {
    "package" : {
      "ecosystem" : "npm",
      "name" : "nodemailer"
    },
    "ranges" : [ {
      "type" : "ECOSYSTEM",
      "events" : [ {
        "introduced" : "0"
      }, {
        "fixed" : "8.0.9"
      } ]
    } ],
    "database_specific" : {
      "last_known_affected_version_range" : "<= 8.0.8"
    }
  } ],
  "references" : [ {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://github.com/nodemailer/nodemailer/security/advisories/GHSA-268h-hp4c-crq3"
  }, {
    "type" : "PACKAGE",
    "url" : "https://github.com/nodemailer/nodemailer"
  } ],
  "database_specific" : {
    "cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-93" ],
    "severity" : "MODERATE",
    "github_reviewed" : true,
    "github_reviewed_at" : "2026-06-15T17:36:06Z",
    "nvd_published_at" : null
  }
}