HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2026 92597 nodemailer before 910 email domain validation
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Affiliate program
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
Medium · CVSS 6.5CVE-2026-92597GHSA-CC9R-2J5M-2M83

Nodemailer before 9.1.0 Email Domain Validation Bypass via RFC 5322 CommentCVE-2026-92597

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-92597 records a Medium severity (CVSS 6.5) vulnerability in Nodemailer before 9.1.0 Email Domain Validation Bypass via RFC 5322 Comment. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps nodemailer/nodemailer (generic), nodemailer (npm), nodemailer (npm). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Sep 16, 2026Updated Sep 22, 2026Source checked Nov 1, 2026First seen by HOL Sep 8, 2026Material review Sep 22, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
Medium · CVSS 6.5
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
3 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 6.5. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps nodemailer/nodemailer (generic), nodemailer (npm), nodemailer (npm). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
nodemailer/nodemailergeneric>=6.9.16 <9.1.09.1.0
nodemailernpm>=6.9.16,<9.1.09.1.0
nodemailernpm>=6.9.16 <9.1.09.1.0

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for nodemailer/nodemailer, nodemailer, nodemailer.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update nodemailer/nodemailer to 9.1.0; nodemailer to 9.1.0; nodemailer to 9.1.0 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Sep 16, 2026

    Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Sep 22, 2026

    Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Sep 8, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • Source referencevulncheck.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
Upstream source description

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 folding whitespace that terminates the domain. A recipient address such as [email protected](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.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
Secret Exfiltration
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-20, CWE-436
Source
CVE List V5
Source checked
Nov 1, 2026
References
8 linked sources
Open source record