CVE-2026-121424: Nodemailer: A nested comment ends early in addressparser, releasing the rest of the comment as a recipient
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. Victim (x(y) <evil@evil.com>) <v@victim.com> names v@victim.com with x(y) <evil@evil.com> as a comment, and Nodemailer read it as the address evil@evil.com. 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 Victim (x(y) <evil@evil.com>) <v@victim.com>, which validates as v@victim.com. Nodemailer delivers to evil@evil.com. 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
js const addressparser = require('nodemailer/lib/addressparser'); console.log(addressparser("Victim (x(y) <evil@evil.com>) <v@victim.com>")); // [ { address: 'evil@evil.com', name: 'Victim) v@victim.com' } ]
Python's email.headervalueparser.getaddresslist reads the same value as v@victim.com with the display name Victim, with no defects reported.
The envelope a message gets is built from the same parse, so sendMail({ to: "Victim (x(y) <evil@evil.com>) <v@victim.com>" }) 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 ) that closes the outermost one.
Found in an internal review of addressparser on 2026-10-18. Verified on 3.0.0, 6.9.16 and 10.1.3.
Other sources
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.1.4 contains an address parsing vulnerability in addressparser that allows remote attackers to redirect recipients by ending nested RFC 5322 comments at the first closing parenthesis. Attackers can submit addresses whose nested comment hides an attacker address, bypassing conformant validators and recipient allow lists to receive mail or spoof senders in mailparser.
— MITRE
Affected Software
Remediation
Recommended actions to resolve this vulnerability, in priority order.
- Upgrade
Upgrade
npm/nodemailerto a version that resolves this vulnerability.Fixed in 10.1.4 - Upgrade
Upgrade
debian/node-nodemailerto a version that resolves this vulnerability.Fixed in 10.1.7+~8.0.2-1 - Upgrade
Upgrade
Nodemailerto a version that resolves this vulnerability.Fixed in 10.1.4
Event History
Frequently Asked Questions
Which deployments are affected?
Nodemailer versions 3.0.0 through 10.1.3 are affected. The listed package ecosystems are Ubuntu, Debian, and npm.
What must an attacker be able to control?
An attacker needs to control an address string passed by an application to Nodemailer, or a From or To header in an inbound message parsed with mailparser. They do not need application access, configuration access, or credentials.
Are applications that validate addresses with a standards-compliant parser protected?
No. The crafted value is a syntactically valid RFC 5322 address that conformant parsers accept, but Nodemailer can extract an attacker-controlled recipient from a nested comment.
How can this be exploited in outbound mail processing?
An application that permits only addresses in its own domain can validate a value such as "Victim (x(y) <evil@evil.com>) <v@victim.com>" as v@victim.com, while Nodemailer delivers the message to evil@evil.com.
What behavior indicates possible exposure?
Exposure is indicated when a submitted address or parsed header containing nested RFC 5322 comments causes Nodemailer to treat text inside the comment as a recipient address. This can result in delivery to an address that differs from the address accepted by upstream validation.