CWE-78
AllowedImproper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
Abstraction: Base · Status: Stable
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
8251 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-9P38-94JF-HGJJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-03 21:41 – Updated: 2026-03-19 18:36Summary
In OpenClaw's macOS node-host path, system.run allowlist parsing in security=allowlist mode failed to reject command substitution tokens when they appeared inside double-quoted shell text.
Because of that gap, payloads like echo "ok $(id)" could be treated as allowlist hits (first executable token echo) while still executing non-allowlisted subcommands through shell substitution.
Affected Packages / Versions
- Package: npm
openclaw - Latest published affected version:
2026.2.21-2 - Affected range:
<= 2026.2.21-2 - Patched version (planned next release):
2026.2.22
Notes:
- Default installs are not affected (security=deny by default).
- The issue requires opting into security=allowlist on the macOS node-host path.
Impact
Approval/authorization bypass in allowlist mode that can lead to unintended command execution on the node host.
Preconditions
- Target uses macOS node-host / companion-app execution path.
- Exec approvals set to
security=allowlist. - Ask mode is
on-missoroff. - Allowlist contains a benign executable used in a shell wrapper flow (for example
/bin/echo).
Reproduction (example)
Use a shell-wrapper command where the visible executable is allowlisted but the quoted payload contains substitution:
- command argv:
/bin/sh -lc 'echo "ok $(/usr/bin/id > /tmp/openclaw-poc-rce)"' - allowlist pattern includes
/bin/echo
Before the fix, allowlist analysis could resolve this as allowlisted while shell substitution still executed.
Remediation
- Upgrade to
2026.2.22(or newer) when released. - Temporary mitigation: set ask mode to
alwaysor set security mode todeny.
Fix Commit(s)
90a378ca3a9ecbf1634cd247f17a35f4612c6ca6
Release Process Note
patched_versions is pre-set to planned next release 2026.2.22. After npm release is out, advisory can be published directly.
OpenClaw thanks @tdjackey for reporting.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.2.22"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-22179"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-03T21:41:12Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-18T02:16:22Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nIn OpenClaw\u0027s macOS node-host path, `system.run` allowlist parsing in `security=allowlist` mode failed to reject command substitution tokens when they appeared inside double-quoted shell text.\n\nBecause of that gap, payloads like `echo \"ok $(id)\"` could be treated as allowlist hits (first executable token `echo`) while still executing non-allowlisted subcommands through shell substitution.\n\n### Affected Packages / Versions\n- Package: npm `openclaw`\n- Latest published affected version: `2026.2.21-2`\n- Affected range: `\u003c= 2026.2.21-2`\n- Patched version (planned next release): `2026.2.22`\n\nNotes:\n- Default installs are not affected (`security=deny` by default).\n- The issue requires opting into `security=allowlist` on the macOS node-host path.\n\n### Impact\nApproval/authorization bypass in allowlist mode that can lead to unintended command execution on the node host.\n\n### Preconditions\n- Target uses macOS node-host / companion-app execution path.\n- Exec approvals set to `security=allowlist`.\n- Ask mode is `on-miss` or `off`.\n- Allowlist contains a benign executable used in a shell wrapper flow (for example `/bin/echo`).\n\n### Reproduction (example)\nUse a shell-wrapper command where the visible executable is allowlisted but the quoted payload contains substitution:\n\n- command argv: `/bin/sh -lc \u0027echo \"ok $(/usr/bin/id \u003e /tmp/openclaw-poc-rce)\"\u0027`\n- allowlist pattern includes `/bin/echo`\n\nBefore the fix, allowlist analysis could resolve this as allowlisted while shell substitution still executed.\n\n### Remediation\n- Upgrade to `2026.2.22` (or newer) when released.\n- Temporary mitigation: set ask mode to `always` or set security mode to `deny`.\n\n### Fix Commit(s)\n- `90a378ca3a9ecbf1634cd247f17a35f4612c6ca6`\n\n### Release Process Note\n`patched_versions` is pre-set to planned next release `2026.2.22`. After npm release is out, advisory can be published directly.\n\nOpenClaw thanks @tdjackey for reporting.",
"id": "GHSA-9p38-94jf-hgjj",
"modified": "2026-03-19T18:36:18Z",
"published": "2026-03-03T21:41:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-9p38-94jf-hgjj"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-22179"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/90a378ca3a9ecbf1634cd247f17a35f4612c6ca6"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-allowlist-bypass-via-command-substitution-in-system-run"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw has macOS `system.run` allowlist bypass via quoted command substitution"
}
GHSA-9P3Q-Q3JF-Q5P4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-26 21:31 – Updated: 2024-07-26 21:31A privilege escalation vulnerability was discovered in the SSH captive command shell interface that could allow an authenticated XCC user with elevated privileges to perform command injection via specially crafted file uploads.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-38510"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-07-26T20:15:04Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A privilege escalation vulnerability was discovered in the SSH captive command shell interface that could allow an authenticated XCC user with elevated privileges to perform command injection via specially crafted file uploads.",
"id": "GHSA-9p3q-q3jf-q5p4",
"modified": "2024-07-26T21:31:15Z",
"published": "2024-07-26T21:31:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-38510"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/product_security/LEN-156781"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9P44-J4G5-CFX5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-18 15:24 – Updated: 2026-02-19 21:56Command Injection in aquasecurity/trivy-action via Unsanitized Environment Variable Export
A command injection vulnerability exists in aquasecurity/trivy-action due to improper handling of action inputs when exporting environment variables. The action writes export VAR=<input> lines to trivy_envs.txt based on user-supplied inputs and subsequently sources this file in entrypoint.sh.
Because input values are written without appropriate shell escaping, attacker-controlled input containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(...), backticks, or other command substitution syntax) may be evaluated during the sourcing process. This can result in arbitrary command execution within the GitHub Actions runner context.
Severity:
Moderate
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (‘OS Command Injection’)
Impact:
Successful exploitation may lead to arbitrary command execution in the CI runner environment.
Affected Versions:
- Versions >= 0.31.0 and <= 0.33.1
- Introduced in commit
7aca5ac
Affected Conditions:
The vulnerability is exploitable when a consuming workflow passes attacker-controlled data into any action input that is written to trivy_envs.txt. Access to user input is required by the malicious actor.
A representative exploitation pattern involves incorporating untrusted pull request metadata into an action parameter. For example:
- uses: aquasecurity/trivy-action@0.33.1
with:
output: "trivy-${{ github.event.pull_request.title }}.sarif"
If the pull request title contains shell syntax, it may be executed when the generated environment file is sourced.
Not Affected:
- Workflows that do not pass attacker-controlled data into
trivy-actioninputs - Workflows that upgrade to a patched version that properly escapes shell values or eliminates the
source ./trivy_envs.txtpattern - Workflows where user input is not accessible.
Call Sites:
action.yaml:188—set_env_var_if_providedwrites unescapedexportlinesentrypoint.sh:9— sources./trivy_envs.txt
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "GitHub Actions",
"name": "aquasecurity/trivy-action"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.31.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.34.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-26189"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-18T15:24:43Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-19T20:25:42Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Command Injection in aquasecurity/trivy-action via Unsanitized Environment Variable Export\n\n\nA command injection vulnerability exists in `aquasecurity/trivy-action` due to improper handling of action inputs when exporting environment variables. The action writes `export VAR=\u003cinput\u003e` lines to `trivy_envs.txt` based on user-supplied inputs and subsequently sources this file in `entrypoint.sh`.\n\nBecause input values are written without appropriate shell escaping, attacker-controlled input containing shell metacharacters (e.g., `$(...)`, backticks, or other command substitution syntax) may be evaluated during the sourcing process. This can result in arbitrary command execution within the GitHub Actions runner context.\n\n**Severity:**\n\nModerate\n\nCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N\n\nCWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u2018OS Command Injection\u2019)\n\n**Impact:**\n\nSuccessful exploitation may lead to arbitrary command execution in the CI runner environment.\n\n\n**Affected Versions:**\n\n* Versions \u003e= 0.31.0 and \u003c= 0.33.1\n* Introduced in commit `7aca5ac`\n\n**Affected Conditions:**\n\nThe vulnerability is exploitable when a consuming workflow passes attacker-controlled data into any action input that is written to `trivy_envs.txt`. Access to user input is required by the malicious actor.\n\nA representative exploitation pattern involves incorporating untrusted pull request metadata into an action parameter. For example:\n\n```yaml\n- uses: aquasecurity/trivy-action@0.33.1\n with:\n output: \"trivy-${{ github.event.pull_request.title }}.sarif\"\n```\n\nIf the pull request title contains shell syntax, it may be executed when the generated environment file is sourced.\n\n**Not Affected:**\n\n* Workflows that do not pass attacker-controlled data into `trivy-action` inputs\n* Workflows that upgrade to a patched version that properly escapes shell values or eliminates the `source ./trivy_envs.txt` pattern\n* Workflows where user input is not accessible.\n\n**Call Sites:**\n\n* `action.yaml:188` \u2014 `set_env_var_if_provided` writes unescaped `export` lines\n* `entrypoint.sh:9` \u2014 sources `./trivy_envs.txt`",
"id": "GHSA-9p44-j4g5-cfx5",
"modified": "2026-02-19T21:56:21Z",
"published": "2026-02-18T15:24:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aquasecurity/trivy-action/security/advisories/GHSA-9p44-j4g5-cfx5"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-26189"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aquasecurity/trivy-action/commit/7aca5acc9500b463826cc47a47a65ad7d404b045"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aquasecurity/trivy-action/commit/bc61dc55704e2d5704760f3cdab0d09acf16e4ca"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/aquasecurity/trivy-action"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Trivy Action has a script injection via sourced env file in composite action"
}
GHSA-9P5W-7F45-V3JM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-02 15:30 – Updated: 2025-02-07 18:31In Flowmon versions prior to 11.1.14 and 12.3.5, an operating system command injection vulnerability has been identified. An unauthenticated user can gain entry to the system via the Flowmon management interface, allowing for the execution of arbitrary system commands.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-2389"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-02T13:15:51Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "In Flowmon versions prior to 11.1.14 and 12.3.5, an operating system command injection vulnerability has been identified.\u00a0 An unauthenticated user\u00a0can gain entry to the system via the Flowmon management interface, allowing for the execution of arbitrary system commands.",
"id": "GHSA-9p5w-7f45-v3jm",
"modified": "2025-02-07T18:31:12Z",
"published": "2024-04-02T15:30:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-2389"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.kemptechnologies.com/hc/en-us/articles/24878235038733-CVE-2024-2389-Flowmon-critical-security-vulnerability"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.flowmon.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9P62-QH48-3FRR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 00:29 – Updated: 2022-05-17 00:29Ruckus Wireless Zone Director Controller firmware releases ZD9.9.x, ZD9.10.x, ZD9.13.0.x less than 9.13.0.0.232 contain OS Command Injection vulnerabilities in the ping functionality that could allow local authenticated users to execute arbitrary privileged commands on the underlying operating system.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-6223"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-10-13T17:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Ruckus Wireless Zone Director Controller firmware releases ZD9.9.x, ZD9.10.x, ZD9.13.0.x less than 9.13.0.0.232 contain OS Command Injection vulnerabilities in the ping functionality that could allow local authenticated users to execute arbitrary privileged commands on the underlying operating system.",
"id": "GHSA-9p62-qh48-3frr",
"modified": "2022-05-17T00:29:51Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T00:29:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-6223"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://ruckus-www.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/security/faq-security-advisory-id-092917.txt"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9P8R-GMQ2-69CR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-21 00:00 – Updated: 2022-09-22 00:00Vulnerabilities in the ClearPass Policy Manager web-based management interface allow remote authenticated users to run arbitrary commands on the underlying host. A successful exploit could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary commands as root on the underlying operating system leading to complete system compromise in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): 6.10.x: 6.10.6 and below; 6.9.x: 6.9.11 and below. Aruba has released upgrades for Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager that address these security vulnerabilities.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-37882"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-20T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Vulnerabilities in the ClearPass Policy Manager web-based management interface allow remote authenticated users to run arbitrary commands on the underlying host. A successful exploit could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary commands as root on the underlying operating system leading to complete system compromise in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): 6.10.x: 6.10.6 and below; 6.9.x: 6.9.11 and below. Aruba has released upgrades for Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager that address these security vulnerabilities.",
"id": "GHSA-9p8r-gmq2-69cr",
"modified": "2022-09-22T00:00:21Z",
"published": "2022-09-21T00:00:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-37882"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.arubanetworks.com/assets/alert/ARUBA-PSA-2022-013.txt"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9P95-FXVG-QGQ2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-06 06:30 – Updated: 2022-12-07 14:15The package simple-git before 3.15.0 is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution (RCE) when enabling the ext transport protocol, which makes it exploitable via clone() method. This vulnerability exists due to an incomplete fix of CVE-2022-24066.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "simple-git"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.15.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-25912"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-12-07T14:15:26Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-06T05:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The package simple-git before 3.15.0 is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution (RCE) when enabling the `ext` transport protocol, which makes it exploitable via `clone()` method. This vulnerability exists due to an incomplete fix of [CVE-2022-24066](https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-SIMPLEGIT-2434306).",
"id": "GHSA-9p95-fxvg-qgq2",
"modified": "2022-12-07T14:15:26Z",
"published": "2022-12-06T06:30:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-25912"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/steveukx/git-js/commit/774648049eb3e628379e292ea172dccaba610504"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/steveukx/git-js"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/steveukx/git-js/blob/main/docs/PLUGIN-UNSAFE-ACTIONS.md%23overriding-allowed-protocols"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/steveukx/git-js/releases/tag/simple-git%403.15.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSNPM-3153532"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-SIMPLEGIT-3112221"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "simple-git vulnerable to Remote Code Execution when enabling the ext transport protocol"
}
GHSA-9PC8-6CRF-R3RV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-14 00:00 – Updated: 2022-04-21 00:00A CWE-78 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') vulnerability exists that could cause remote code execution when performed over the network. Affected Product: StruxureWare Data Center Expert (V7.8.1 and prior)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-22795"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-04-13T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A CWE-78 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (\u0027OS Command Injection\u0027) vulnerability exists that could cause remote code execution when performed over the network. Affected Product: StruxureWare Data Center Expert (V7.8.1 and prior)",
"id": "GHSA-9pc8-6crf-r3rv",
"modified": "2022-04-21T00:00:38Z",
"published": "2022-04-14T00:00:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-22795"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.se.com/ww/en/download/document/SEVD-2021-257-03"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9PCC-MX54-F9HQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:10 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:10An issue was discovered in GitLab Community and Enterprise Edition 11.11. A specially crafted payload would allow an authenticated malicious user to execute commands remotely through the repository download feature. It allows Command Injection.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-12430"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-03-10T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in GitLab Community and Enterprise Edition 11.11. A specially crafted payload would allow an authenticated malicious user to execute commands remotely through the repository download feature. It allows Command Injection.",
"id": "GHSA-9pcc-mx54-f9hq",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:10:32Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:10:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-12430"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://about.gitlab.com/blog/categories/releases"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2019/06/03/security-release-gitlab-11-dot-11-dot-1-released"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-9PCJ-M5RR-P28G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-25 18:31 – Updated: 2026-03-31 23:24textract through 2.5.0 is vulnerable to OS Command Injection via the file path parameter in multiple extractors. When processing files with malicious filenames, the filePath is passed directly to child_process.exec() in lib/extractors/doc.js, rtf.js, dxf.js, images.js, and lib/util.js with inadequate sanitization
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "textract"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.5.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-26831"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-78",
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-31T23:24:42Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-25T16:16:21Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "textract through 2.5.0 is vulnerable to OS Command Injection via the file path parameter in multiple extractors. When processing files with malicious filenames, the filePath is passed directly to child_process.exec() in lib/extractors/doc.js, rtf.js, dxf.js, images.js, and lib/util.js with inadequate sanitization",
"id": "GHSA-9pcj-m5rr-p28g",
"modified": "2026-03-31T23:24:42Z",
"published": "2026-03-25T18:31:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-26831"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/dbashford/textract"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dbashford/textract/blob/master/lib/extractors/doc.js"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dbashford/textract/blob/master/lib/extractors/rtf.js"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dbashford/textract/blob/master/lib/util.js"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/zebbernCVE/CVE-2026-26831"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.npmjs.com/package/textract"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "textract is vulnerable to OS Command Injection"
}
Mitigation
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Mitigation MIT-22
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
- Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
- OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Mitigation
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation MIT-4.3
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error.
Mitigation MIT-28
Strategy: Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).
Mitigation
If the program to be executed allows arguments to be specified within an input file or from standard input, then consider using that mode to pass arguments instead of the command line.
Mitigation MIT-27
Strategy: Parameterization
- If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
- Some languages offer multiple functions that can be used to invoke commands. Where possible, identify any function that invokes a command shell using a single string, and replace it with a function that requires individual arguments. These functions typically perform appropriate quoting and filtering of arguments. For example, in C, the system() function accepts a string that contains the entire command to be executed, whereas execl(), execve(), and others require an array of strings, one for each argument. In Windows, CreateProcess() only accepts one command at a time. In Perl, if system() is provided with an array of arguments, then it will quote each of the arguments.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: 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.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- When constructing OS command strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping.
- Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing OS command injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent OS command injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, when invoking a mail program, you might need to allow the subject field to contain otherwise-dangerous inputs like ";" and ">" characters, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the character might reduce the risk of OS command injection, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the subject field would not be recorded as the user intended. This might seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it could be more important when the program relies on well-structured subject lines in order to pass messages to other components.
- Even if you make a mistake in your validation (such as forgetting one out of 100 input fields), appropriate encoding is still likely to protect you from injection-based attacks. As long as it is not done in isolation, input validation is still a useful technique, since it may significantly reduce your attack surface, allow you to detect some attacks, and provide other security benefits that proper encoding does not address.
Mitigation MIT-21
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Mitigation MIT-32
Strategy: Compilation or Build Hardening
Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
Mitigation MIT-32
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
Mitigation MIT-39
- Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success.
- If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files.
- Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not.
- In the context of OS Command Injection, error information passed back to the user might reveal whether an OS command is being executed and possibly which command is being used.
Mitigation
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
Use runtime policy enforcement to create an allowlist of allowable commands, then prevent use of any command that does not appear in the allowlist. Technologies such as AppArmor are available to do this.
Mitigation MIT-29
Strategy: Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Mitigation MIT-17
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
Mitigation MIT-16
Strategy: Environment Hardening
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CAPEC-108: Command Line Execution through SQL Injection
An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.
CAPEC-15: Command Delimiters
An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.
CAPEC-43: Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
CAPEC-6: Argument Injection
An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.
CAPEC-88: OS Command Injection
In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.