nodemailer: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (ghsa:GHSA-4g23-2xm8-66gc)
Published Sources: Hersteller
What is affected, what to do
Update nodemailer to version 10.0.10.
Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability
Metrics
—
Priority
No value is available for this vulnerability.
—
CVSS v3
No value is available for this vulnerability.
—
EPSS score
No value is available for this vulnerability.
Show all metrics
- Severity
- Medium
Priority (0–325)
The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?
Read in glossary- 30.00 Methodology
Exploit maturity
An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.
Read in glossary- no public PoC known
KEV status
The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.
Read in glossary- —
- Published
CWE
CWE is a catalogue of typical weakness types in software and hardware — such as flawed input validation, unsafe memory handling or poor authentication. Where a CVE names a concrete vulnerability in a concrete product, a CWE describes the underlying class of defect.
Read in glossary- CWE-400, CWE-407
Classification under NIS2 and CRA
Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.
NIS2
NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.
Read in glossary- Handle the vulnerability in regular vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2.
CRA
The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.
Read in glossary- From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
ISO/IEC 27001
ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.
Read in glossary- Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.
Description
Summary
The SMTP client response parser reassembles multiline server replies by appending each continuation line onto a single response-queue entry and re-testing whether that entry is still a partial (continuation) reply on every line. The partial-response test runs str.slice(str.lastIndexOf('\n') + 1) on the growing entry, which forces a full flatten of the entire accumulated string on each line. A malicious or compromised SMTP server (or an on-path attacker on a plaintext or pre-STARTTLS hop) that streams continuation lines and never sends a completion line drives O(n^2) CPU on the single-threaded Node.js event loop before any authentication, freezing the whole process for an attacker-controlled duration.
Root Cause
The invariant that a server cannot cause superlinear client-side work while a reply is being reassembled is violated. In src/smtp-connection/index.ts, _onData splits inbound bytes into lines and, while the last queued entry is a continuation reply, concatenates each new line onto that same entry with this._responseQueue[len - 1] += '\n' + lines[i]. On every iteration it calls isPartialResponse(lastline), which evaluates /^\d+-/.test(str.slice(str.lastIndexOf('\n') + 1)). Because the queued entry grows by one line per continuation line and is stored as a V8 rope (ConsString), each lastIndexOf/slice forces a full string flatten of length proportional to the accumulated reply. Executed once per line over n continuation lines, this is O(n^2) CPU. While the reply stays partial the function early-returns and never resets the entry, so the growth and the per-line reflatten continue unbounded. There is no response-size or line-count cap in the connection code; the only limits are time-based (greetingTimeout, and an inactivity socketTimeout), and neither bounds accumulated reply size.
Affected file and functions (verified at the published v10.0.9 artifact, in src/ and in the built dist/cjs and dist/esm output):
- src/smtp-connection/index.ts: isPartialResponse (the /^\d+-/ test over str.slice(str.lastIndexOf('\n')+1))
- src/smtp-connection/index.ts: SMTPConnection._onData (the continuation-line append loop with no size cap)
Impact
An attacker who is, or can impersonate, the SMTP peer the client connects to can freeze the connecting Node.js process. Because Node.js is single-threaded, event-loop starvation halts all other work in that process (every other connection, request, and timer), not just the offending SMTP session. The reply is parsed during the greeting and EHLO phases, before the client authenticates or issues any command, so no credentials on the client are required. The blocking duration scales with the volume of continuation data the attacker streams and can be sustained indefinitely by continuing to stream, and memory for the accumulated entry also grows without bound. Independent reproduction on Node.js 24 measured roughly 11.6 seconds of event-loop blocking for about 640 KB of continuation data and roughly 47 seconds for about 1.3 MB, scaling quadratically. This is a repeatable remote denial of service against the sending process.
Proof of Concept
Node.js 24; a raw TCP listener acting as a hostile SMTP server; the client uses the shipped SMTPConnection (require('nodemailer/lib/smtp-connection')).
Steps: (1) start a TCP server that accepts a connection and streams continuation lines of the form 220-flood...\r\n in large batches, never emitting a completion line such as 220 ready; (2) point an SMTPConnection at it and observe the client event loop stall while the single response-queue entry grows and is reflattened on every line. A minimal microbenchmark of the exact parsing logic demonstrates the complexity:
// Reproduces isPartialResponse + the _onData append loop verbatim (Node 24).
function isPartialResponse(str) { return /^\d+-/.test(str.slice(str.lastIndexOf('\n') + 1)); }
function run(n) {
const queue = [];
let remainder = '';
function onData(chunk) {
const lines = (remainder + chunk).split(/\r?\n/);
remainder = lines.pop();
for (let i = 0; i < lines.length; i++) {
if (queue.length && isPartialResponse(queue[queue.length - 1])) {
queue[queue.length - 1] += '\n' + lines[i];
continue;
}
queue.push(lines[i]);
}
}
let buf = '';
for (let i = 0; i < n; i++) buf += '220-flood line ' + i + '\r\n';
const t = Date.now();
onData(buf);
return Date.now() - t;
}
for (const n of [8000, 16000, 32000, 64000]) console.log(n, run(n) + 'ms');
8000 26.5ms
16000 357.6ms
32000 2712.0ms
64000 11645.1ms
(2x input yields roughly 4x-7x time: quadratic. ~640 KB of continuation data blocks the event loop ~11.6s.)
Attack Chain
- Exposure: The client opens an SMTP connection whose peer is attacker-controlled or attacker-influenced: a compromised or malicious configured server, a tenant-supplied outbound server in a multi-tenant "bring your own SMTP" deployment, a deliverability or mailbox-probing tool that connects to arbitrary servers, or an on-path attacker on a plaintext or pre-STARTTLS hop.
- Control: The peer fully controls the bytes of its greeting and EHLO replies, including whether a reply ever completes.
- Path: Inbound bytes reach the socket
datahandler_onData, the sole data handler; every reply phase traverses the same continuation-append loop. - Guard: No response-size or line-count cap exists. The greeting timer is time-based and cleared after the greeting, and its callback is itself starved while
_onDataruns synchronously; the inactivity timer resets on every inbound chunk, so an actively streaming attacker never trips it. - Primitive: Each continuation line appended to the single growing queue entry triggers a full string flatten in
isPartialResponse, yielding O(n^2) synchronous CPU on the event loop. - Result: Whole-process event-loop starvation for an attacker-controlled, sustainable duration, plus unbounded memory growth: a remote denial of service reachable before authentication.
Bypass Evidence
The relevant guard would be a cap on accumulated reply size or line count. A search of the connection module (maxSize, maxLength, responseQueue.length >, byte or line ceilings) finds none; the only bounds are greetingTimeout and the inactivity-based socketTimeout, both time-based and neither bounding accumulated size. Disproof attempts: the greeting timeout does not help because it is time-based, fires only during the greeting phase, is cleared once the greeting completes, and its callback is delayed while _onData runs synchronously; a well-behaved server does not trigger the issue because a completion line resets the entry and keeps cost linear, but the modeled attacker is a hostile peer; segmented delivery does not help the defender because the response queue and line remainder persist across _onData calls so the accumulation and quadratic cost survive chunking; there is no safer alternate caller because _onData is the only data handler and the append loop is on every reply phase. Note on scope: core nodemailer connects to a configured host and does not perform MX resolution, so this is not reachable through a direct-to-MX transport; the malicious-peer, multi-tenant tenant-supplied-host, deliverability-probe, and MITM paths establish reachability.
Affected Versions
Ecosystem: npmPackage: nodemailerConfirmed affected range: <= 10.0.9Latest release checked: nodemailer 10.0.9 (npm registry; vulnerable code verified at git tag v10.0.9 and in the published dist output)Fix status: 10.0.10
The quadratic reassembly shape is long-standing and predates the addressparser complexity fix family, so the exact introducing release is not positively established and the lower bound is left open; the upper bound is verified against the current
Source: GitHub Security Advisories
Affected products
The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.
| Affected versions | Fixed in | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | nodemailer |
|
|
Weakness classes (CWE)
CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
Class
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
Entry at MITRE CWE-400CWE-407Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity
Class
An algorithm in a product has an inefficient worst-case computational complexity that may be detrimental to system performance and can be triggered by an attacker, typically using crafted manipulations that ensure that the worst case is being reached.
Entry at MITRE CWE-407