CVE-2017-16072
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditednodemailer.js was a malicious module published with the intent to hijack environment variables. It has been unpublished by npm.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidencenodemailer.js was a malicious npm module published to the npm registry with the explicit intent of hijacking environment variables. It collected and exfiltrated environment variables (likely including credentials, API keys, and secrets) from systems where it was installed.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE dataall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Inspect package.json for malicious dependencyOpen the project's package.json file and search for 'nodemailer.js' (with the .js extension) in the dependencies, devDependencies, or optionalDependencies sections. Also check for any unexpected or suspicious package entries.Affected if The string 'nodemailer.js' appears as a dependency
-
Search package-lock.json for malicious entryOpen package-lock.json and search for 'nodemailer.js' - look specifically for entries where the package name includes the .js extension, which is the malicious typosquatting package.Affected if An entry for 'nodemailer.js' is found in the lock file
-
Check node_modules directory directlyLook for a directory named 'nodemailer.js' (with .js) inside the node_modules folder of the project. Use command: ls node_modules/ | grep nodemailerAffected if A directory named 'nodemailer.js' exists in node_modules
-
Query installed packages via npmRun 'npm list --all' or 'npm ls' to display the full dependency tree, then search the output for 'nodemailer.js' (with .js extension).Affected if The npm list output shows nodemailer.js in the dependency tree
-
Audit historical npm installationsRun 'npm audit' to check for known vulnerabilities or malicious packages in the project dependencies.Affected if npm audit reports nodemailer.js as a suspicious or malicious package
A user is affected if the malicious package 'nodemailer.js' (with the .js extension) appears in their dependency tree, as this package was designed to exfiltrate environment variables from the system where it was installed.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataVerify that nodemailer.js is not present in any dependency trees (check package.json, package-lock.json, npm-shrinkwrap.json), audit historical usage to determine if credentials may have been exposed, and rotate any secrets that could have been captured.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,456.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-16072 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-16072 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data