<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://db.gcve.eu</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 06:41:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>GHSA-g57g-f23g-4646 — Nodemailer: Quoted local-part can produce malformed envelope recipient through RFC 5322 comment parsing</title>
      <link>https://db.gcve.eu/vuln/ghsa-g57g-f23g-4646</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; npm: nodemailer&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;## Summary&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nodemailer&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
&amp;#34;user&amp;#34;@example.com(x)evil.com
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;is parsed as:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
{
  address: &amp;#34;user@example.com evil.com&amp;#34;,
  name: &amp;#34;&amp;#34;
}
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The resulting address therefore contains additional attacker-controlled domain text separated by a literal space.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The parsed `.address` value is subsequently propagated into the SMTP envelope:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
src/addressparser/index.ts
        ↓
recipient.address
        ↓
src/mime-node/index.ts
        ↓
envelope.to
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The envelope construction uses the parsed address without another strict address validation step.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;## Reproduction&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Input:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
&amp;#34;user&amp;#34;@example.com(x)evil.com
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Observed parser output:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
address: &amp;#34;user@example.com evil.com&amp;#34;
name: &amp;#34;&amp;#34;
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A second example:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
&amp;#34;a&amp;#34;@b.com(c)d.com(e)f.com
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;produces:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
address: &amp;#34;a@b.com d.com f.com&amp;#34;
name: &amp;#34;&amp;#34;
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For comparison, the corresponding unquoted form:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
user@example.com(x)evil.com
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;takes a different code path and is handled by the existing protection differently.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;## Technical Details&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue is caused by different parsing behavior for quoted and unquoted local-parts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The quoted-local-part variant a…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; npm: nodemailer&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;## Summary&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nodemailer&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
&amp;#34;user&amp;#34;@example.com(x)evil.com
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;is parsed as:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
{
  address: &amp;#34;user@example.com evil.com&amp;#34;,
  name: &amp;#34;&amp;#34;
}
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The resulting address therefore contains additional attacker-controlled domain text separated by a literal space.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The parsed `.address` value is subsequently propagated into the SMTP envelope:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
src/addressparser/index.ts
        ↓
recipient.address
        ↓
src/mime-node/index.ts
        ↓
envelope.to
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The envelope construction uses the parsed address without another strict address validation step.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;## Reproduction&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Input:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
&amp;#34;user&amp;#34;@example.com(x)evil.com
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Observed parser output:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
address: &amp;#34;user@example.com evil.com&amp;#34;
name: &amp;#34;&amp;#34;
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A second example:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
&amp;#34;a&amp;#34;@b.com(c)d.com(e)f.com
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;produces:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
address: &amp;#34;a@b.com d.com f.com&amp;#34;
name: &amp;#34;&amp;#34;
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For comparison, the corresponding unquoted form:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```text
user@example.com(x)evil.com
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;takes a different code path and is handled by the existing protection differently.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;## Technical Details&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The issue is caused by different parsing behavior for quoted and unquoted local-parts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The quoted-local-part variant a…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://db.gcve.eu/vuln/ghsa-g57g-f23g-4646</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
