GHSA-P6GQ-J5CR-W38F

Message-level raw option bypasses disableFileAccess / disableUrlAccess, enabling arbitrary file read and full-response SSRF in the sent message

• Target: nodemailer/nodemailer, npm nodemailer v9.0.0 (HEAD 4e58450eb490e5097a74b2b2cce35a8d9e21856e)
• Verdict: CONFIRMED (local PoC, no network)

Nodemailer exposes disableFileAccess and disableUrlAccess so an application that passes
untrusted message data to the library can forbid that data from reading local files or
fetching URLs. Every attachment, alternative, html/text/watchHtml/amp and icalEvent
content node honors these flags. The message-level raw option does not.

MailComposer.compile() builds the root MIME node for a raw message without threading the
two flags, so a raw: { path: '/etc/passwd' } or raw: { href: 'http://169.254.169.254/…' }
message is read / fetched anyway, and the file or HTTP-response bytes become the actual
message that is sent by every transport (SMTP, SES, sendmail, stream, JSON). An actor whose
input the application intended to sandbox therefore obtains arbitrary local-file disclosure and
a full-response SSRF primitive, delivered to a recipient the same actor can choose.

This is the same vulnerability class as the already-published jsonTransport advisory
GHSA-wqvq-jvpq-h66f, but a distinct code path (raw root node, not normalize()), and
strictly higher impact: the jsonTransport bug only affected the locally-returned JSON, whereas
this affects the delivered RFC822 message for all transports.

Affected component

• lib/mail-composer/index.js:34-35, root cause:

  if (this.mail.raw) {
      this.message = new MimeNode('message/rfc822', { newline: this.mail.newline }).setRaw(this.mail.raw);
  }
  

  The MimeNode is constructed with only { newline }. Compare the sibling node builders
  _createMixed/_createAlternative/_createRelated/_createContentNode
  (lib/mail-composer/index.js:389-527), which all pass
  disableUrlAccess: this.mail.disableUrlAccess, disableFileAccess: this.mail.disableFileAccess.
• lib/mime-node/index.js:51-52, the constructor derives this.disableFileAccess/
  this.disableUrlAccess solely from its own options; children do not inherit a parent's
  flags (createChild/appendChild, lines 175-194, pass options through verbatim).
• lib/mime-node/index.js:812, setRaw() content is resolved through this._getStream(this._raw).
• lib/mime-node/index.js:984-1010, _getStream reads the file (fs.createReadStream, 995) or
  fetches the URL (nmfetch, 1009) only guarded by this.disableFileAccess/this.disableUrlAccess,
  which on the raw root node are false.
• Reached from the normal send flow at lib/mailer/index.js:188
  (mail.message = new MailComposer(mail.data).compile()), so every transport is affected.

Reachability gate (hop-by-hop)

1. Source. Application calls transporter.sendMail({ raw: <userControlled> , to: <userControlled> })
   with disableFileAccess: true and/or disableUrlAccess: true configured on the transporter
   (forced onto mail.data in lib/mailer/mail-message.js:36-40) or per message. This is the
   exact scenario the flags exist for, the same precondition under which GHSA-wqvq-jvpq-h66f was
   accepted.
2. Guard, the access flags. For attachments the flag is enforced: a node created by
   _createContentNode carries disableFileAccess, so _getStream throws EFILEACCESS.
   Bypass: the raw branch (compile():34-35) never sets the flag on its node, so
   this.disableFileAccess === false and the guard at mime-node:985 / :999 is skipped.
   There is no other validation between mail.raw and the read; raw content shapes
   ({path}, {href}, stream, string, buffer) are accepted as-is by setRaw/_getStream.
3. Sink. fs.createReadStream(content.path) (file disclosure) or
   nmfetch(content.href, …) (SSRF). The resulting bytes are emitted as the message body by
   createReadStream(), which every transport pipes to its destination
   (smtp-transport:233, smtp-pool/pool-resource:208, ses-transport:96, sendmail-transport:184,
   stream-transport:67).

No guard blocks the chain; the only guard (the access flags) is structurally absent on this node.

Root cause

Inconsistent enforcement: the access policy is applied per-MimeNode via constructor options and
must be re-passed at every node creation. The raw-message shortcut in compile() omits it,
while all five other node builders include it. The flags are therefore enforced for every content
type except the one that lets the caller supply a complete message body by path/URL.

Exploit path

Application that sandboxes untrusted mail input (disableFileAccess/disableUrlAccess set):

1. Untrusted actor supplies raw: { path: '/proc/self/environ' } (or any server file:
   /app/.env, key material, etc.) and to: [email protected].
2. compile() builds the raw root node without the flags; the transport reads the file and sends
   its contents as the message → arbitrary server-file exfiltration to an attacker-chosen mailbox.
3. Alternatively raw: { href: 'http://127.0.0.1:8080/admin' } or a cloud metadata URL →
   Nodemailer fetches it server-side and delivers the full response body in the email →
   full-response SSRF (no blind-channel limitation).

Preconditions

The application (a) passes disableFileAccess and/or disableUrlAccess (the documented sandboxing
flags) and (b) lets untrusted input influence the raw field (and, for maximal disclosure, to).
No other configuration is required; all bundled transports are affected. This mirrors the accepted
precondition of GHSA-wqvq-jvpq-h66f.

Severity

• AV, message data routinely originates over the network in the apps these flags protect.
• AC, a single crafted raw object; deterministic.
• PR, the actor is a user whose input the app already treats as untrusted (the reason the
  flags are set); not fully anonymous in the typical deployment.
• UI, no victim interaction.
• S, impact within Nodemailer's process scope.
• C, arbitrary file read and full-response SSRF, both delivered to an attacker-chosen
  recipient. (The sibling jsonTransport advisory used C:L because its leak stayed in locally-returned
  JSON; here the bytes leave the system in the sent message, so C:H is warranted.)
• I, attacker injects fetched/file bytes into the outgoing message.
• A.
  Note: if a deployment fixes the recipient (to not attacker-controlled) the disclosure channel
  narrows and the rating degrades toward the sibling's Medium; the High rating reflects the
  reasonable worst case where raw and to are both untrusted.

Adversarial re-read (attempts to refute)

1. "raw content is by-design trusted, so the flags shouldn't apply." Rejected: every other
   content path (attachments, alternatives, html/text, icalEvent) honors the flags, and the
   maintainer already accepted GHSA-wqvq-jvpq-h66f for exactly this "untrusted input + flag set"
   model. The asymmetry, attachment {path} is blocked but raw:{path} is not, is the bug, and
   the PoC's CONTROL case proves the flag is otherwise effective on the same file.
2. "The raw node inherits the flags via rootNode." Rejected by code and by PoC: compile():35
   constructs the node with { newline } only; MimeNode constructor sets
   this.disableFileAccess = !!options.disableFileAccess → false; rootNode is itself; no
   inheritance exists.
3. "The PoC leaks for an unrelated reason." Rejected: the CONTROL message (attachments:[{path}],
   same file, same transporter) returns EFILEACCESS; only the raw:{path} message leaks. The
   sentinel nonce exists solely in the temp file; the URL nonce is generated server-side and is only
   obtainable by an actual fetch. Both observables are uniquely bound to the bypass.
4. "Maybe only jsonTransport (already reported) is affected." Rejected: the PoC uses
   streamTransport and the root cause is in MailComposer.compile() (mailer:188), shared by all
   transports; jsonTransport is a different (already-fixed) path.

I could not find any guard that blocks the chain; the finding survives.

Proof of concept (safe, benign)

findings/nodemailer/raw/poc-raw-fileaccess-bypass.js, local, no network egress (loopback only),
no destructive action. Output:

[CONTROL] attachment path with disableFileAccess: BLOCKED (EFILEACCESS), flag works here
[ATTACK]  raw:{path} with disableFileAccess=true: BYPASSED, sentinel file CONTENT present in message
[ATTACK]  raw:{href} with disableUrlAccess=true (loopback server): BYPASSED, fetched body present (SSRF)
VERDICT: CONFIRMED

Run: node findings/nodemailer/raw/poc-raw-fileaccess-bypass.js (exit 0 = confirmed).

• Confidentiality (High): arbitrary local file read disclosed in the outgoing message;
  full-response SSRF to internal/metadata endpoints, also disclosed in the message.
• Integrity (Low): attacker-fetched/file content is injected into the delivered mail.
• The two protective flags an application relies on to contain untrusted input are silently
  ineffective for raw.

Untrusted input controls the target URL of a server-initiated request, which may reach internal services not otherwise accessible from outside. Typical impact: access to internal metadata services, internal APIs, or cloud credentials.

GHSA-P6GQ-J5CR-W38F has a CVSS score of 7.1 (High). The vector is network-reachable, low 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 (9.0.1); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Kodem intelligence

Thread the access policy onto the raw root node, exactly as the other builders do:

if (this.mail.raw) {
    this.message = new MimeNode('message/rfc822', {
        newline: this.mail.newline,
        disableFileAccess: this.mail.disableFileAccess,
        disableUrlAccess: this.mail.disableUrlAccess
    }).setRaw(this.mail.raw);
}

(Defense in depth: setRaw/_getStream could also refuse {path}/{href} raw content when either
flag is set, regardless of how the node was constructed.) Add a regression test asserting that
raw:{path} and raw:{href} reject with EFILEACCESS/EURLACCESS when the flags are set, mirroring
the attachment tests.

1. What is GHSA-P6GQ-J5CR-W38F? GHSA-P6GQ-J5CR-W38F is a high-severity server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in nodemailer (npm), affecting versions <= 9.0.0. It is fixed in 9.0.1. Untrusted input controls the target URL of a server-initiated request, which may reach internal services not otherwise accessible from outside.
2. How severe is GHSA-P6GQ-J5CR-W38F? GHSA-P6GQ-J5CR-W38F has a CVSS score of 7.1 (High). 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.
3. Which versions of nodemailer are affected by GHSA-P6GQ-J5CR-W38F? nodemailer (npm) versions <= 9.0.0 is affected.
4. Is there a fix for GHSA-P6GQ-J5CR-W38F? Yes. GHSA-P6GQ-J5CR-W38F is fixed in 9.0.1. Upgrade to this version or later.
5. Is GHSA-P6GQ-J5CR-W38F exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-P6GQ-J5CR-W38F 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
6. What actually determines whether GHSA-P6GQ-J5CR-W38F 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.
7. How do I fix GHSA-P6GQ-J5CR-W38F? Upgrade nodemailer to 9.0.1 or later.