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

CISA KEV is observed exploitation evidence. FIRST EPSS is a dated prediction of exploitation in the next 30 days. Missing scores are unknown. This collector requests predictions only for explicit CVE aliases in the public NuGet archive; Microsoft release views retain their existing prediction scope.

No collected risk observation for these identifiers. This does not establish absence of exploitation or a zero probability.

### 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) <[email protected]>) <[email protected]>` names `[email protected]` with `x(y) <[email protected]>` as a comment, and Nodemailer read it as the address `[email protected]`. 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) <[email protected]>) <[email protected]>`, which validates as `[email protected]`. Nodemailer delivers to `[email protected]`. 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) <[email protected]>) <[email protected]>")); // [ { address: '[email protected]', name: 'Victim) [email protected]' } ] ``` Python's `email._header_value_parser.get_address_list` reads the same value as `[email protected]` 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) <[email protected]>) <[email protected]>" })` 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.

Source published

23 Oct 2026 21:53:04 UTC

Source modified

23 Oct 2026 22:00:03 UTC

Observed here

24 Oct 2026 13:17:17 UTC

Source terms

GitHub Advisory Database · CC-BY-4.0

Original source record · Cite this exact observation · Complete original publisher JSON

This view projects the publisher's source fields for reading; the original JSON retains additional fields and CVE enrichment containers. Attribution: osv · GitHub Advisory Database · CC-BY-4.0. Source text is retained; field grouping and change labels are provided by ChangeIntel.

CVSS_V3 · CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N

Publisher rating · MODERATE