Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-26831 is a critical-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Dbashford Textract. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 17% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
Textract, a Node.js library for extracting text from various document formats through version 2.5.0, contains an OS command injection vulnerability (CVE-2026-26831, CWE-78, CWE-94). The issue arises when processing files with malicious filenames, as the filePath parameter is passed directly to child_process.exec() without adequate sanitization in multiple extractor modules, including lib/extractors/doc.js, rtf.js, dxf.js, images.js, and lib/util.js. This flaw was published on 2026-03-25 and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating critical severity.
Remote attackers require no privileges or user interaction to exploit this vulnerability. By supplying a file with a specially crafted filename to an application using textract for document processing, an unauthenticated adversary can inject and execute arbitrary operating system commands on the host system. Successful exploitation grants high-impact control over confidentiality, integrity, and availability, potentially leading to full remote code execution.
References point to the textract GitHub repository and the specific vulnerable source files, along with a dedicated CVE details repository. Security practitioners should verify the latest textract release for remediation, as the vulnerability affects versions through 2.5.0, and update affected applications accordingly to mitigate risks.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-15459
Vulnerability Data
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
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8V15.2.5V1.3.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.
Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.