Every CVE Search/ Get API key

CVE-2026-100699

Nodemailer before 10.0.9 Malformed Envelope Recipient via RFC 5322 Comment

6.9 MediumFix available

Nodemailer is a Node.js email-sending library. In versions >= 9.1.0 and < 10.0.9, the address parser (src/addressparser) mishandles addresses whose local-part is a quoted string and that are followed by RFC 5322 comments, allowing trailing comment-separated domain atoms to be retained in the normalized address. For example, the input "user"@example.com(x)evil.com is parsed to the address value '[email protected] evil.com', which contains additional attacker-controlled domain text separated by a literal space. This parsed value is used without further strict recipient validation when the message envelope is built (envelope.to in src/mime-node), so a malformed/ambiguous recipient address can be accepted and placed in the SMTP envelope. Whether this results in delivery to an unintended recipient on real SMTP servers has not been confirmed. The issue is a variant of the RFC 5322 comment parsing problem addressed in GHSA-cc9r-2j5m-2m83, affecting the separate quoted-local-part code path. Version 10.0.9 contains a fix.

Attack profile

How easy it is to exploit

Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges needed
None
User interaction
None

What an attacker can affect

Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Exploit likelihood

0.23%Unchanged since Sep 27, 2026
90%50%10%1%

What each source reports

CVE List Score used 6.9

Nodemailer before 10.0.9 Malformed Envelope Recipient via RFC 5322 Comment

Nodemailer is a Node.js email-sending library. In versions >= 9.1.0 and < 10.0.9, the address parser (src/addressparser) mishandles addresses whose local-part is a quoted string and that are followed by RFC 5322 comments, allowing trailing comment-separated domain atoms to be retained in the normalized address. For example, the input "user"@example.com(x)evil.com is parsed to the address value '[email protected] evil.com', which contains additional attacker-controlled domain text separated by a literal space. This parsed value is used without further strict recipient validation when the message envelope is built (envelope.to in src/mime-node), so a malformed/ambiguous recipient address can be accepted and placed in the SMTP envelope. Whether this results in delivery to an unintended recipient on real SMTP servers has not been confirmed. The issue is a variant of the RFC 5322 comment parsing problem addressed in GHSA-cc9r-2j5m-2m83, affecting the separate quoted-local-part code path. Version 10.0.9 contains a fix.

Record
CVE-2026-100699
CVSS 4.0
6.9 MediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
CVSS 3.1
5.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Weakness
CWE-20
Updated
2026-11-02
EUVDEUVD-2026-87672 6.9

Nodemailer is a Node.js email-sending library. In versions >= 9.1.0 and < 10.0.9, the address parser (src/addressparser) mishandles addresses whose local-part is a quoted string and that are followed by RFC 5322 comments, allowing trailing comment-separated domain atoms to be retained in the normalized address. For example, the input "user"@example.com(x)evil.com is parsed to the address value '[email protected] evil.com', which contains additional attacker-controlled domain text separated by a literal space. This parsed value is used without further strict recipient validation when the message envelope is built (envelope.to in src/mime-node), so a malformed/ambiguous recipient address can be accepted and placed in the SMTP envelope. Whether this results in delivery to an unintended recipient on real SMTP servers has not been confirmed. The issue is a variant of the RFC 5322 comment parsing problem addressed in GHSA-cc9r-2j5m-2m83, affecting the separate quoted-local-part code path. Version 10.0.9 contains a fix.

Record
EUVD-2026-87672
CVSS 4.0
6.9 MediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Updated
2026-11-02
GitHub AdvisoriesGHSA-fcjc-3m4q-q926 6.9

Nodemailer is a Node.js email-sending library. In versions >= 9.1.0 and < 10.0.9, the address...

Nodemailer is a Node.js email-sending library. In versions >= 9.1.0 and < 10.0.9, the address parser (src/addressparser) mishandles addresses whose local-part is a quoted string and that are followed by RFC 5322 comments, allowing trailing comment-separated domain atoms to be retained in the normalized address. For example, the input "user"@example.com(x)evil.com is parsed to the address value '[email protected] evil.com', which contains additional attacker-controlled domain text separated by a literal space. This parsed value is used without further strict recipient validation when the message envelope is built (envelope.to in src/mime-node), so a malformed/ambiguous recipient address can be accepted and placed in the SMTP envelope. Whether this results in delivery to an unintended recipient on real SMTP servers has not been confirmed. The issue is a variant of the RFC 5322 comment parsing problem addressed in GHSA-cc9r-2j5m-2m83, affecting the separate quoted-local-part code path. Version 10.0.9 contains a fix.

Record
GHSA-fcjc-3m4q-q926
CVSS 4.0
6.9 MediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
CVSS 3.1
5.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Weakness
CWE-20
Updated
2026-11-02
GitHub AdvisoriesGHSA-g57g-f23g-4646 5.3

Nodemailer: Quoted local-part can produce malformed envelope recipient through RFC 5322 comment parsing

Summary

Nodemailer's address parser can produce an unexpected recipient address when an RFC 5322 comment follows the domain of an address whose local-part is a quoted string.

For example:

"user"@example.com(x)evil.com

is parsed as:

{
  address: "[email protected] evil.com",
  name: ""
}

The resulting address therefore contains additional attacker-controlled domain text separated by a literal space.

The parsed .address value is subsequently propagated into the SMTP envelope:

src/addressparser/index.ts
        ↓
recipient.address
        ↓
src/mime-node/index.ts
        ↓
envelope.to

The envelope construction uses the parsed address without another strict address validation step.

This appears to be a variant of the RFC 5322 comment parsing issue addressed by GHSA-cc9r-2j5m-2m83, but it follows a different parser path when the local-part is quoted.

Reproduction

Input:

"user"@example.com(x)evil.com

Observed parser output:

address: "[email protected] evil.com"
name: ""

A second example:

"a"@b.com(c)d.com(e)f.com

produces:

address: "[email protected] d.com f.com"
name: ""

For comparison, the corresponding unquoted form:

[email protected](x)evil.com

takes a different code path and is handled by the existing protection differently.

Technical Details

The issue is caused by different parsing behavior for quoted and unquoted local-parts.

The quoted-local-part variant allows the comment-separated trailing domain atoms to remain in the resulting .address value.

That value is then used when constructing the message envelope:

envelope.to = recipients.map(to => to.address as string)

No additional strict recipient validation is performed at this boundary.

Security Impact

The confirmed impact is that attacker-controlled comment content can result in a malformed/ambiguous recipient address being accepted by the parser and propagated into envelope.to.

The reporter did not confirm successful delivery to an unintended recipient through a real SMTP server using this exact quoted-local-part variant.

The remaining question is how real SMTP servers and other Nodemailer transports handle an envelope recipient containing a value such as:

[email protected] evil.com

An end-to-end SMTP test is required to determine whether this parser behavior results in an exploitable delivery or recipient-validation bypass.

Relationship to GHSA-cc9r-2j5m-2m83

This report is intended as a potential variant/follow-up to GHSA-cc9r-2j5m-2m83.

The existing advisory addresses RFC 5322 comment handling in email domains. This report identifies a separate parser path involving quoted local-parts that can preserve additional domain-like content in the normalized address.

Please evaluate whether this behavior is already covered by the existing fix or represents a remaining parser variant.

Suggested Fix

The parser should consistently reject or correctly terminate addresses containing trailing domain atoms after RFC 5322 comments, regardless of whether the local-part is quoted.

In particular:

"user"@example.com(x)evil.com

should not result in:

[email protected] evil.com

The envelope-generation layer should also avoid assuming that a parser-produced address is safe for SMTP delivery without appropriate validation.

Verification Status

Confirmed:

  • Parser accepts the quoted-local-part variant.
  • Parser produces an address containing additional attacker-controlled text.
  • The resulting address is propagated into envelope.to.

Not confirmed by reporter:

  • Successful delivery through a real SMTP server.
  • Delivery to an unintended recipient.
  • Exploitability against a specific downstream SMTP implementation.
Record
GHSA-g57g-f23g-4646
CVSS 3.1
5.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Weakness
CWE-20, CWE-436
Updated
2026-11-02
NVD 6.9

Nodemailer is a Node.js email-sending library. In versions >= 9.1.0 and < 10.0.9, the address parser (src/addressparser) mishandles addresses whose local-part is a quoted string and that are followed by RFC 5322 comments, allowing trailing comment-separated domain atoms to be retained in the normalized address. For example, the input "user"@example.com(x)evil.com is parsed to the address value '[email protected] evil.com', which contains additional attacker-controlled domain text separated by a literal space. This parsed value is used without further strict recipient validation when the message envelope is built (envelope.to in src/mime-node), so a malformed/ambiguous recipient address can be accepted and placed in the SMTP envelope. Whether this results in delivery to an unintended recipient on real SMTP servers has not been confirmed. The issue is a variant of the RFC 5322 comment parsing problem addressed in GHSA-cc9r-2j5m-2m83, affecting the separate quoted-local-part code path. Version 10.0.9 contains a fix.

Record
CVE-2026-100699
CVSS 4.0
6.9 MediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
CVSS 3.1
5.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Weakness
CWE-20
Updated
2026-11-02
OSV 6.9

Nodemailer before 10.0.9 Malformed Envelope Recipient via RFC 5322 Comment

Nodemailer is a Node.js email-sending library. In versions >= 9.1.0 and < 10.0.9, the address parser (src/addressparser) mishandles addresses whose local-part is a quoted string and that are followed by RFC 5322 comments, allowing trailing comment-separated domain atoms to be retained in the normalized address. For example, the input "user"@example.com(x)evil.com is parsed to the address value '[email protected] evil.com', which contains additional attacker-controlled domain text separated by a literal space. This parsed value is used without further strict recipient validation when the message envelope is built (envelope.to in src/mime-node), so a malformed/ambiguous recipient address can be accepted and placed in the SMTP envelope. Whether this results in delivery to an unintended recipient on real SMTP servers has not been confirmed. The issue is a variant of the RFC 5322 comment parsing problem addressed in GHSA-cc9r-2j5m-2m83, affecting the separate quoted-local-part code path. Version 10.0.9 contains a fix.

Record
CVE-2026-100699
CVSS 4.0
6.9 MediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Weakness
CWE-20
Updated
2026-11-02
Show 11 moreShow less
OSVDEBIAN-CVE-2026-100699 6.9

Nodemailer is a Node.js email-sending library. In versions >= 9.1.0 and < 10.0.9, the address parser (src/addressparser) mishandles addresses whose local-part is a quoted string and that are followed by RFC 5322 comments, allowing trailing comment-separated domain atoms to be retained in the normalized address. For example, the input "user"@example.com(x)evil.com is parsed to the address value '[email protected] evil.com', which contains additional attacker-controlled domain text separated by a literal space. This parsed value is used without further strict recipient validation when the message envelope is built (envelope.to in src/mime-node), so a malformed/ambiguous recipient address can be accepted and placed in the SMTP envelope. Whether this results in delivery to an unintended recipient on real SMTP servers has not been confirmed. The issue is a variant of the RFC 5322 comment parsing problem addressed in GHSA-cc9r-2j5m-2m83, affecting the separate quoted-local-part code path. Version 10.0.9 contains a fix.

Record
DEBIAN-CVE-2026-100699
CVSS 4.0
6.9 MediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVGHSA-g57g-f23g-4646 5.3

Nodemailer: Quoted local-part can produce malformed envelope recipient through RFC 5322 comment parsing

Summary

Nodemailer's address parser can produce an unexpected recipient address when an RFC 5322 comment follows the domain of an address whose local-part is a quoted string.

For example:

"user"@example.com(x)evil.com

is parsed as:

{
  address: "[email protected] evil.com",
  name: ""
}

The resulting address therefore contains additional attacker-controlled domain text separated by a literal space.

The parsed .address value is subsequently propagated into the SMTP envelope:

src/addressparser/index.ts
        ↓
recipient.address
        ↓
src/mime-node/index.ts
        ↓
envelope.to

The envelope construction uses the parsed address without another strict address validation step.

This appears to be a variant of the RFC 5322 comment parsing issue addressed by GHSA-cc9r-2j5m-2m83, but it follows a different parser path when the local-part is quoted.

Reproduction

Input:

"user"@example.com(x)evil.com

Observed parser output:

address: "[email protected] evil.com"
name: ""

A second example:

"a"@b.com(c)d.com(e)f.com

produces:

address: "[email protected] d.com f.com"
name: ""

For comparison, the corresponding unquoted form:

[email protected](x)evil.com

takes a different code path and is handled by the existing protection differently.

Technical Details

The issue is caused by different parsing behavior for quoted and unquoted local-parts.

The quoted-local-part variant allows the comment-separated trailing domain atoms to remain in the resulting .address value.

That value is then used when constructing the message envelope:

envelope.to = recipients.map(to => to.address as string)

No additional strict recipient validation is performed at this boundary.

Security Impact

The confirmed impact is that attacker-controlled comment content can result in a malformed/ambiguous recipient address being accepted by the parser and propagated into envelope.to.

The reporter did not confirm successful delivery to an unintended recipient through a real SMTP server using this exact quoted-local-part variant.

The remaining question is how real SMTP servers and other Nodemailer transports handle an envelope recipient containing a value such as:

[email protected] evil.com

An end-to-end SMTP test is required to determine whether this parser behavior results in an exploitable delivery or recipient-validation bypass.

Relationship to GHSA-cc9r-2j5m-2m83

This report is intended as a potential variant/follow-up to GHSA-cc9r-2j5m-2m83.

The existing advisory addresses RFC 5322 comment handling in email domains. This report identifies a separate parser path involving quoted local-parts that can preserve additional domain-like content in the normalized address.

Please evaluate whether this behavior is already covered by the existing fix or represents a remaining parser variant.

Suggested Fix

The parser should consistently reject or correctly terminate addresses containing trailing domain atoms after RFC 5322 comments, regardless of whether the local-part is quoted.

In particular:

"user"@example.com(x)evil.com

should not result in:

[email protected] evil.com

The envelope-generation layer should also avoid assuming that a parser-produced address is safe for SMTP delivery without appropriate validation.

Verification Status

Confirmed:

  • Parser accepts the quoted-local-part variant.
  • Parser produces an address containing additional attacker-controlled text.
  • The resulting address is propagated into envelope.to.

Not confirmed by reporter:

  • Successful delivery through a real SMTP server.
  • Delivery to an unintended recipient.
  • Exploitability against a specific downstream SMTP implementation.
Record
GHSA-g57g-f23g-4646
CVSS 3.1
5.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Weakness
CWE-20, CWE-436
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVUBUNTU-CVE-2026-100699 6.9

Nodemailer is a Node.js email-sending library. In versions >= 9.1.0 and < 10.0.9, the address parser (src/addressparser) mishandles addresses whose local-part is a quoted string and that are followed by RFC 5322 comments, allowing trailing comment-separated domain atoms to be retained in the normalized address. For example, the input "user"@example.com(x)evil.com is parsed to the address value '[email protected] evil.com', which contains additional attacker-controlled domain text separated by a literal space. This parsed value is used without further strict recipient validation when the message envelope is built (envelope.to in src/mime-node), so a malformed/ambiguous recipient address can be accepted and placed in the SMTP envelope. Whether this results in delivery to an unintended recipient on real SMTP servers has not been confirmed. The issue is a variant of the RFC 5322 comment parsing problem addressed in GHSA-cc9r-2j5m-2m83, affecting the separate quoted-local-part code path. Version 10.0.9 contains a fix.

Record
UBUNTU-CVE-2026-100699
CVSS 4.0
6.9 MediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
CVSS 3.1
5.3 MediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVCLSA-2026-1790854662 No score

TuxCare security update for nodemailer (4 CVEs)

TuxCare rebuilt nodemailer to address 4 CVEs. Fixed in 9.1.0-tuxcare.4.

Record
CLSA-2026-1790854662
Updated
2026-11-02
OSVCLSA-2026-1793790274 No score

TuxCare security update for nodemailer (2 CVEs)

TuxCare rebuilt nodemailer to address 2 CVEs. Fixed in 9.0.6-tuxcare.8.

Record
CLSA-2026-1793790274
Updated
2026-11-04
OSVCLSA-2026-1793801901 No score

TuxCare security update for nodemailer (1 CVE)

TuxCare rebuilt nodemailer to address 1 CVE. Fixed in 9.0.5-tuxcare.9.

Record
CLSA-2026-1793801901
Updated
2026-11-04
OSVCLSA-2026-1793808867 No score

TuxCare security update for nodemailer (1 CVE)

TuxCare rebuilt nodemailer to address 1 CVE. Fixed in 9.0.3-tuxcare.8.

Record
CLSA-2026-1793808867
Updated
2026-11-04
OSVCLSA-2026-1793814042 No score

TuxCare security update for nodemailer (1 CVE)

TuxCare rebuilt nodemailer to address 1 CVE. Fixed in 9.0.2-tuxcare.9.

Record
CLSA-2026-1793814042
Updated
2026-11-05
OSVCLSA-2026-1793828946 No score

TuxCare security update for nodemailer (1 CVE)

TuxCare rebuilt nodemailer to address 1 CVE. Fixed in 9.0.1-tuxcare.7.

Record
CLSA-2026-1793828946
Updated
2026-11-05
OSVCLSA-2026-1793874971 No score

TuxCare security update for nodemailer (1 CVE)

TuxCare rebuilt nodemailer to address 1 CVE. Fixed in 9.0.0-tuxcare.10.

Record
CLSA-2026-1793874971
Updated
2026-11-05
OSVCLSA-2026-1793882612 No score

TuxCare security update for nodemailer (1 CVE)

TuxCare rebuilt nodemailer to address 1 CVE. Fixed in 6.10.1-tuxcare.18.

Record
CLSA-2026-1793882612
Updated
2026-11-06

Affected products

Affected packages

Affected packages
PackageAffectedFixed
nodemailer
npm
9.1.0 up to 10.0.9
10.0.9
nodemailer
TuxCare:npm
From an advisory covering 2 CVEs
9.1.0-tuxcare.0 up to 9.1.0-tuxcare.4, plus listed versions
9.1.09.1.0-tuxcare.19.1.0-tuxcare.29.1.0-tuxcare.3
9.1.0-tuxcare.4
nodemailer
TuxCare:npm
9.0.6-tuxcare.0 up to 9.0.6-tuxcare.8, plus listed versions
9.0.69.0.6-tuxcare.19.0.6-tuxcare.29.0.6-tuxcare.39.0.6-tuxcare.49.0.6-tuxcare.59.0.6-tuxcare.69.0.6-tuxcare.7
9.0.6-tuxcare.8
nodemailer
TuxCare:npm
9.0.5-tuxcare.0 up to 9.0.5-tuxcare.9, plus listed versions
9.0.59.0.5-tuxcare.19.0.5-tuxcare.29.0.5-tuxcare.39.0.5-tuxcare.4
Show 4 moreShow less
9.0.5-tuxcare.59.0.5-tuxcare.69.0.5-tuxcare.79.0.5-tuxcare.8
9.0.5-tuxcare.9
nodemailer
TuxCare:npm
9.0.3-tuxcare.0 up to 9.0.3-tuxcare.8, plus listed versions
9.0.39.0.3-tuxcare.19.0.3-tuxcare.29.0.3-tuxcare.39.0.3-tuxcare.49.0.3-tuxcare.59.0.3-tuxcare.69.0.3-tuxcare.7
9.0.3-tuxcare.8
nodemailer
TuxCare:npm
9.0.2-tuxcare.0 up to 9.0.2-tuxcare.9, plus listed versions
9.0.29.0.2-tuxcare.19.0.2-tuxcare.29.0.2-tuxcare.39.0.2-tuxcare.4
Show 4 moreShow less
9.0.2-tuxcare.59.0.2-tuxcare.69.0.2-tuxcare.79.0.2-tuxcare.8
9.0.2-tuxcare.9
nodemailer
TuxCare:npm
9.0.1-tuxcare.0 up to 9.0.1-tuxcare.7, plus listed versions
9.0.19.0.1-tuxcare.19.0.1-tuxcare.29.0.1-tuxcare.39.0.1-tuxcare.49.0.1-tuxcare.59.0.1-tuxcare.6
9.0.1-tuxcare.7
nodemailer
TuxCare:npm
9.0.0-tuxcare.0 up to 9.0.0-tuxcare.10, plus listed versions
9.0.09.0.0-tuxcare.19.0.0-tuxcare.29.0.0-tuxcare.39.0.0-tuxcare.4
Show 5 moreShow less
9.0.0-tuxcare.59.0.0-tuxcare.69.0.0-tuxcare.79.0.0-tuxcare.89.0.0-tuxcare.9
9.0.0-tuxcare.10
nodemailer
TuxCare:npm
6.10.1-tuxcare.0 up to 6.10.1-tuxcare.18, plus listed versions
6.10.16.10.1-tuxcare.16.10.1-tuxcare.106.10.1-tuxcare.116.10.1-tuxcare.12
Show 13 moreShow less
6.10.1-tuxcare.136.10.1-tuxcare.146.10.1-tuxcare.156.10.1-tuxcare.166.10.1-tuxcare.176.10.1-tuxcare.26.10.1-tuxcare.36.10.1-tuxcare.46.10.1-tuxcare.56.10.1-tuxcare.66.10.1-tuxcare.76.10.1-tuxcare.86.10.1-tuxcare.9
6.10.1-tuxcare.18
node-nodemailer
Debian:12
All versions, plus listed versions
10.0.0+~8.0.1-110.0.10+~8.0.1-110.0.10+~8.0.2-16.10.0+~6.4.17-16.8.0+~6.4.6-1
Show 22 moreShow less
6.9.13+~6.4.14-16.9.15+~6.4.16-16.9.16+~6.4.16-16.9.4+~6.4.9-16.9.4+~6.4.9-26.9.4+~6.4.9-36.9.4+~6.4.9-47.0.10+~7.0.2-17.0.12+~7.0.5-17.0.5+~7.0.1-17.0.6+~7.0.1-17.0.9+~7.0.2-17.0.9+~7.0.2-28.0.11+~8.0.1-18.0.2+~7.0.11-18.0.3+~7.0.11-18.0.4+~7.0.11-18.0.4+~7.0.11-29.0.0+~8.0.1-19.0.3+~8.0.1-19.0.5+~8.0.1-19.0.6+~8.0.1-1
None known
Show 7 moreShow less
Affected packages
PackageAffectedFixed
node-nodemailer
Debian:13
All versions, plus listed versions
10.0.0+~8.0.1-110.0.10+~8.0.1-110.0.10+~8.0.2-16.10.0+~6.4.17-16.10.0+~6.4.17-1+deb13u1
Show 15 moreShow less
7.0.10+~7.0.2-17.0.12+~7.0.5-17.0.5+~7.0.1-17.0.6+~7.0.1-17.0.9+~7.0.2-17.0.9+~7.0.2-28.0.11+~8.0.1-18.0.2+~7.0.11-18.0.3+~7.0.11-18.0.4+~7.0.11-18.0.4+~7.0.11-29.0.0+~8.0.1-19.0.3+~8.0.1-19.0.5+~8.0.1-19.0.6+~8.0.1-1
None known
node-nodemailer
Debian:14
before 10.0.10+~8.0.1-1, plus listed versions
10.0.0+~8.0.1-16.10.0+~6.4.17-17.0.10+~7.0.2-17.0.12+~7.0.5-17.0.5+~7.0.1-1
Show 12 moreShow less
7.0.6+~7.0.1-17.0.9+~7.0.2-17.0.9+~7.0.2-28.0.11+~8.0.1-18.0.2+~7.0.11-18.0.3+~7.0.11-18.0.4+~7.0.11-18.0.4+~7.0.11-29.0.0+~8.0.1-19.0.3+~8.0.1-19.0.5+~8.0.1-19.0.6+~8.0.1-1
10.0.10+~8.0.1-1
node-nodemailer
Ubuntu:20.04:LTS
All versions, plus listed versions
6.3.0-26.3.1-16.4.0-16.4.1-16.4.2-16.4.5-1
None known
node-nodemailer
Ubuntu:22.04:LTS
All versions, plus listed versions
6.4.17-36.7.0-16.7.0-26.7.1+~6.4.4-1
None known
node-nodemailer
Ubuntu:24.04:LTS
All versions, plus listed versions
6.9.4+~6.4.9-26.9.4+~6.4.9-3ubuntu16.9.4+~6.4.9-4
None known
node-nodemailer
Ubuntu:26.10
All versions, plus listed versions
8.0.4+~7.0.11-18.0.4+~7.0.11-29.0.0+~8.0.1-19.0.3+~8.0.1-19.0.5+~8.0.1-1
None known
node-nodemailer
Ubuntu:26.04:LTS
All versions, plus listed versions
7.0.5+~7.0.1-17.0.9+~7.0.2-27.0.10+~7.0.2-17.0.12+~7.0.5-18.0.4+~7.0.11-1
None known

History

History
RecordedChangedSources
affected, aliasesOSV
affected
affected, aliasesOSV
affected, aliasesOSV
affected, aliasesOSV
affected, aliases, factsOSV
first indexedCVE List, EUVD, GitHub Advisories, NVD, OSV

Dates are when Every CVE recorded each change. Upstream dates may differ.

In short

CVE-2026-100699 is a medium vulnerability (CVSS 6.9) in Nodemailer, published September 26, 2026. No source lists public exploit code. EPSS puts the chance of exploitation in the next 30 days at 0.23%, the 14th percentile. Fixed in nodemailer 10.0.9.

References

Show 6 moreShow less
MoveEnter Open