CVE-2026-92597
Raw vector
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/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-92597 is a high-severity Interpretation Conflict (CWE-436) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 17th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-81297
Vulnerability Data
Nodemailer versions >= 6.9.16 and < 9.1.0 mis-parse RFC 5322 comments in email addresses: in lib/addressparser, a comment closed immediately before a non-break character causes the tokenizer to concatenate the atoms surrounding the comment instead of treating the comment as…
more
folding whitespace that terminates the domain. A recipient address such as user@good-corp.com(x)evil.com is therefore read by Nodemailer as the single domain good-corp.comevil.com (registrable domain comevil.com, which an attacker can register) and used for both the SMTP envelope (RCPT TO) and the emitted To:/From: headers, while a conformant RFC 5322 parser terminates the domain at the comment and reads good-corp.com. An application that validates the recipient domain with a strict RFC 5322 parser (without inspecting parse defects) or a naive prefix/substring allow-list and then hands the raw address to Nodemailer can be induced to deliver mail to a domain the attacker controls. Fixed in 9.1.0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover cases where two products interpret the same inputs or state transitions differently.
Applying security engineering principles during design can require unambiguous protocol and data-format specifications that eliminate divergent interpretations between products.
Protecting the integrity of transmitted information makes it harder for an attacker to craft messages that exploit differing interpretations between communicating products.
Strict, consistently applied input validation reduces the chance that one product will accept data the other product rejects or interprets differently.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Correlating logs from multiple products can surface discrepancies caused by interpretation conflicts.
Runtime monitoring of software behavior can detect adverse outcomes stemming from differing interpretations.
Supplier risk assessments can identify products whose differing interpretations create systemic exposure.
Secure SDLC practices directly reduce the chance of introducing parser or state-machine inconsistencies.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure development lifecycle can require consistent interface contracts and canonicalization rules that reduce interpretation conflicts between components.
Explicit application security requirements can mandate unambiguous protocol and data-format specifications that prevent divergent interpretations.
Secure architecture principles include well-defined component boundaries and shared data models that limit conflicting state perceptions.
Secure coding standards can enforce canonical input handling and strict protocol compliance to avoid misinterpretation between products.
Security testing can detect and correct cases where one component misinterprets another’s state or messages.