CVE-2026-53533
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
aiosmtplib's SMTP.mail(), SMTP.rcpt(), SMTP.vrfy() and SMTP.expn() send the caller-supplied email address to the server without rejecting embedded CR/LF (\r\n) bytes. An address that contains a CR/LF is written verbatim onto the SMTP control connection, so the bytes after the CRLF are framed by the server as one or more additional, standalone SMTP command lines. A caller that passes an attacker-influenced sender or recipient address into mail()/rcpt() (or vrfy()/expn()) therefore allows SMTP command injection (CWE-93 / CWE-77): the attacker can smuggle arbitrary SMTP verbs such as MAIL FROM, RCPT TO, RSET, DATA, or AUTH into the session. Injected commands will cause the SMTP instance to hang, but all commands required to complete the envelope could be sent in one address string.
The SMTP.sendmail() command will pass sender and recipient addresses verbatim through to SMTP.mail() & SMTP.rcpt(), and so is also vulnerable. SMTP.send_message() is not affected.
Impact
Severity: medium. Type: SMTP protocol command injection (CWE-93 — Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences; CWE-77 — Command Injection).
When an application built on aiosmtplib derives the envelope sender or any recipient from data an attacker can influence (a web form etc.) and passes it to mail()/rcpt() (directly, or via sendmail()/send() without a Message object), the attacker can:
- desynchronize the command/response pipeline and cause the aiosmtplib client to hang, resulting in a possible denial of service
- inject multiple commands in one address to send an arbitrary message
The address only needs to reach mail()/rcpt()/vrfy()/expn(); no attacker control over the SMTP server is required.
Vulnerable versions
Affected version: aiosmtplib 5.1.0 (latest at time of report) and all earlier releases.
Credit
Reported by tonghuaroot.
GitHub
CVSS SCORE
6.9medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| aiosmtplib | pypi | - | - | <=5.1.0 | 5.1.1 |
CVSS:4 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: A race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability. The successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker. The attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful. Network injection. The attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
The attacker is unauthenticated prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the Subsequent System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System.
Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.