CVE-2025-59937VulnerabilityPublished 29 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-59937: wneessen go-mail · Argument Injection

Affects wneessen go-mailSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High : upgrade to 0.7.1 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.2High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 45% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.7.1

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: Present: 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, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); 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).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: High: 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade wneessen go-mail to 0.7.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
wneessen go-mail	Affected <0.7.1	Fixed in 0.7.1

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade all instances of the go-mail library to version 0.7.1 or later immediately to apply the official fix. 2. Implement strict validation and sanitization of all user-supplied email addresses before passing them to the mail library, ensuring no quoted local parts or special characters that could be used for injection are accepted. 3. Employ allowlists for email address formats and domains where feasible to reduce risk from arbitrary inputs. 4. Monitor email sending logs for unusual SMTP command patterns or routing anomalies that could indicate exploitation attempts. 5. Use application-layer email validation libraries that conform to RFC standards to reject malformed or suspicious addresses. 6. Conduct code reviews and security testing focused on email input handling in all applications utilizing go-mail. 7. Consider deploying outbound email security gateways that can detect and block anomalous SMTP commands or parameter injections. 8. Educate developers and administrators about the risks of argument injection in SMTP commands and the importance of input sanitization. 9. Maintain an incident response plan to quickly address any suspected exploitation. 10. Regularly audit dependencies and update libraries to minimize exposure to known vulnerabilities.

Description

go-mail is a comprehensive library for sending mails with Go. In versions 0.7.0 and below, due to incorrect handling of the mail.Address values when a sender- or recipient address is passed to the corresponding MAIL FROM or RCPT TO commands of the SMTP client, there is a possibility of wrong address routing or even ESMTP parameter smuggling. For successful exploitation, it is required that the user's code allows for arbitrary mail address input (i.e.through a web form or similar). If only static mail addresses are used (i.e.in a config file) and the mail addresses in use do not consist of quoted local parts, this should not affect users. This issue is fixed in version 0.7.1

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the integrity and confidentiality of email communications. Attackers could exploit the flaw to manipulate SMTP commands, causing emails to be misrouted, intercepted, or altered in transit. This could lead to data leakage, phishing, or bypassing of email security controls. Organizations relying on go-mail in customer-facing applications, such as contact forms, newsletters, or automated notifications, are particularly vulnerable if they accept arbitrary email addresses without validation. The impact extends to potential reputational damage, regulatory non-compliance (e.g., GDPR breaches due to data exposure), and disruption of business communications. Since the vulnerability can be exploited remotely without authentication or user interaction, the attack surface is broad. However, the absence of known active exploits reduces immediate risk, though proactive mitigation is critical. The vulnerability could also be leveraged in targeted attacks against European entities with sensitive communications, especially in sectors like finance, healthcare, and government.

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Oct 2025, 00:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats