Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.35% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-82659High confidence
nodemailer before 9.0.1 File Read and SSRF via raw option
nodemailer · nodemailer
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-P6GQ-J5CR-W38F ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
7.1HighCVSS 4.0
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix
Fix availability varies by productHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 4 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs nodemailer nodemailer and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Remediation availability differs by product scope
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 4 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
- Red Hat Product Security: 2 affected or under-investigation product states without a fixed product state in the same current advisory
- Debian Security Tracker: 2 affected package states with no published fix
Distribution package intelligence
5 package statesRelease-specific package status
Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Package result overrides the generic status
BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 2 affected package states shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | node-nodemailer | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | node-nodemailer | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | node-nodemailer | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 9.0.3+~8.0.1-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | node-nodemailer | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 9.0.3+~8.0.1-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | node-nodemailer | Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Open-source package ranges2 source-attributed ranges
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| npmnodemailer | <= 9.0.0 | 9.0.1 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 2 Sep 2026 |
| npmnodemailer | SEMVER: introduced 0; fixed 9.0.1 | 9.0.1 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
Direct vendor intelligence
1 currentAuthoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
CVE-2026-82659 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securitynodemailer: Nodemailer: Arbitrary file read and Server-Side Request Forgery via raw option bypass
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
- rhdh/rhdh-hub-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Developer Hub
- ansible-automation-platform/bootc-automation-portal-rhel9 as a component of Self-service automation portal 2
- Summary
- A flaw was found in nodemailer. Authenticated attackers can bypass security flags by crafting raw messages with specific file paths or URLs. This allows them to read arbitrary files from the system or perform Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), potentially leading to information disclosure or unauthorized access to internal network resources.
- Remediation
- Affected
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 4 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by product01
What, why and how
nodemailer before 9.0.1 fails to apply disableFileAccess and disableUrlAccess flags to message-level raw option, allowing authenticated attackers to read arbitrary files or perform server-side request forgery by supplying path or href properties. Attackers can exploit this by crafting raw messages with file paths or URLs that bypass the intended sandbox, with fetched content delivered in the outgoing message to attacker-controlled recipients.
What
nodemailer before 9.0.1 fails to apply disableFileAccess and disableUrlAccess flags to message-level raw option, allowing authenticated attackers to read arbitrary files or perform server-side request forgery by supplying path or href properties. Attackers can exploit this by crafting raw messages with file paths or URLs that bypass the intended sandbox, with fetched content delivered in the outgoing message to attacker-controlled recipients.
Why
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may obtain information outside the intended access boundary.
What
nodemailer before 9.0.1 fails to apply disableFileAccess and disableUrlAccess flags to message-level raw option, allowing authenticated attackers to read arbitrary files or perform server-side request forgery by supplying path or href properties. Attackers can exploit this by crafting raw messages with file paths or URLs that bypass the intended sandbox, with fetched content delivered in the outgoing message to attacker-controlled recipients.
Why
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may obtain information outside the intended access boundary.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → External Control of File Name or Path → obtain information outside the intended access boundary
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-73 ↗
CWE-73: External Control of File Name or Path. The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VILowVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SINoneSubsequent-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix availability varies by product
- Affected
- Fixed
- nodemailer: 9.0.1
- Action
- Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 31 Aug 2026 · Last source change 31 Aug 2026, 18:52 UTC · CWE-73 · External Control of File Name or Path
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-31
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-68437
Product sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD awaiting enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-68437 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-68437"}
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.