Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 1.03% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-82853High confidence
Nodemailer before 8.0.5 SMTP Command Injection via CRLF
nodemailer · nodemailer
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-VVJJ-XCJG-GR5G ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
6.9MediumCVSS 4.0
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix
Fix availability varies by productMedium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 7 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 severityMedium→Operational priority:High, raised one band.upgradedsince 31 Aug 2026
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.
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 7 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
- Red Hat Product Security: 5 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 5 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 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | node-nodemailer | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 8.0.11+~8.0.1-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | node-nodemailer | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 8.0.11+~8.0.1-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 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 ranges1 source-attributed range
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 | SEMVER: introduced 0; fixed 8.0.5 | 8.0.5 | 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-2026-82853 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securitynodemailer: Nodemailer: SMTP Command Injection allows email spoofing and phishing attacks
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
- rhdh/rhdh-hub-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Developer Hub
- grafana as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- grafana-selinux as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- grafana.src as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- ansible-automation-platform/bootc-automation-portal-rhel9 as a component of Self-service automation portal 2
- Summary
- A flaw was found in Nodemailer. This vulnerability allows a remote attacker to inject arbitrary Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) commands due to improper sanitization of carriage return and line feed characters in the transport name option. This can lead to email spoofing and phishing attacks.
- Remediation
- Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 7 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 versions before 8.0.5 contain an SMTP command injection vulnerability in the transport name option used in EHLO/HELO commands. The name parameter is concatenated directly into SMTP commands without sanitizing carriage return and line feed characters, allowing attackers to inject arbitrary SMTP commands for email spoofing and phishing attacks.
What
Nodemailer versions before 8.0.5 contain an SMTP command injection vulnerability in the transport name option used in EHLO/HELO commands. The name parameter is concatenated directly into SMTP commands without sanitizing carriage return and line feed characters, allowing attackers to inject arbitrary SMTP commands for email spoofing and phishing attacks.
Why
The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Nodemailer versions before 8.0.5 contain an SMTP command injection vulnerability in the transport name option used in EHLO/HELO commands. The name parameter is concatenated directly into SMTP commands without sanitizing carriage return and line feed characters, allowing attackers to inject arbitrary SMTP commands for email spoofing and phishing attacks.
Why
The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
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 Reference recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection') → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- High: elevated access 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-93 ↗
CWE-93: Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection'). The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.
- 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:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/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.PRHighPrivileges required: The attacker needs elevated or administrative privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCNoneVulnerable-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major 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
- rhdh/rhdh-hub-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Developer Hub
- grafana as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- grafana-selinux as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- grafana.src as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- ansible-automation-platform/bootc-automation-portal-rhel9 as a component of Self-service automation portal 2
- Fixed
- nodemailer: 8.0.5
- 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
- Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 31 Aug 2026 · Last source change 31 Aug 2026, 11:00 UTC · CWE-93 · Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')
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-2026-68441
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
- Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed from remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-82853 to remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-82853.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-82853
- After
- remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-82853
- Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Awaiting fix to Mitigation available.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- Awaiting fix
- After
- Mitigation available
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- 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
- After
- rhdh/rhdh-hub-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat Developer Hub; grafana as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10; grafana-selinux as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10; grafana.src as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10; ansible-automation-platform/bootc-automation-portal-rhel9 as a component of Self-service automation portal 2
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-68441 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-68441"}
- Public exploit evidencePublic exploit evidence changed from No public exploit to Public exploit reference.CVE.org ↗
- Before
- No public exploit
- After
- Public exploit reference
- 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.